Thank you.
Welcome to our guests again.
I would certainly hope I would speak on behalf of all of the committee, but I know I would speak certainly on behalf of a large portion of it when I say just how much of an honour and a privilege it is to sit on this committee. For the most part, many of us have a non-partisan bone in our body, in contrast to some of the antics that take place on this Hill.
One of the reasons we're so privileged to have you before us is that basically the essence of our committee is your evaluations. You do not deal with things in a partisan way. You do not deal with the court of public opinion. You deal with fact.
We, as parliamentarians, are subject to the ultimate decision-makers when the voters decide whether or not we do a job. But we of course cannot do our job effectively unless we have information we can depend on and that we know will help provide guidance and will certainly give us an indication if we're going down the wrong path—because nobody's perfect. And at that particular point, we need that hand on the rudder to say “I suggest you try this”.
When I take a look at the honesty with which you approach your own evaluations, to me that's crucial. If we can't have faith in your own effective evaluations of your own department, how can we have faith in what you are doing with Parliament itself? That's why, of course, the peer reviews are so important. The fact that your reviews parallel the peer reviews in most cases is highly encouraging.
The one thing I am very comfortable with as a member of the government party, but regardless of who's in government, is the fact that Parliament does respond to your concerns. When I take a look at the percentage of reservations that are addressed from one financial audit to the other, you have a goal of 100%. Let's not accept anything less. And Parliament's been able to run along those measures. I take a look at the percentage of significant deficiencies that are addressed from one special examination to another. We're rolling along.
I was particularly pleased when you identified the one area—the lack of information due to, I suppose, the assessment by judicial officials--as to what would be deemed to be pertinent. You took your concerns directly to both administrative and legislative ends, and you appear to have a satisfactory response, at least in activities. We're pleased to see that from the government. As that moves down the road, this committee will certainly be looking to follow up on that and ensure you've been assured, both tangibly as well as verbally, that you have the results you're looking for.
In spite of all these glowing accolades that you and your office deserve, I would certainly hope you would never be satisfied. I still think there's always room for improvement anywhere. I see you're looking at a renewal of your audit methodology, and an updating of all the manuals. I'm hoping that is maybe one of the areas that you're suggesting you're looking at for improvement. But if you had to pick three areas of improvement you want to move on, distinctly and effectively, right now, that would help you do a better job to advise us, what would your thoughts be?