Thank you very much, Chair.
Madam Fraser, welcome.
Welcome to our guests from Australia. Thank you for the work you've undertaken, ultimately on behalf of the people of Canada. We very much appreciate it.
I'm sure you know that the Auditor General is well respected in Canada, and deservedly so. But I think the sense of duty we feel to hold the auditor accountable in her own audit is valid. Given that Ms. Fraser commands such respect, woe betide anybody here who doesn't handle this properly. I do believe they see accountability as part of the system, which is why the system works so well. There's accountability for everyone--ultimately for us, too--directly to the Canadian people. So again, thank you so much for undertaking this work on behalf of our people.
My first question is in relation to the 2004 peer review.
I also wanted to put on the record--and this needs to be noted by Canadians--the courage our own Auditor General displayed in asking for this audit. It's been my experience in over six years on this committee that departments in the federal government don't jump up and down and say, “Pick me, pick me.” To have an auditor who's prepared to do just that while understanding the potential damage.... If you came out with a scathing report, the Auditor General's ability to maintain that reputation and continue to do her work would be severely impaired. So I think it says a lot about the Auditor General. It says that she and her senior managers have so much confidence in the department they run that any helpful criticisms that might come forward would not damage in any way the respect for the Auditor General here. That respect is really the currency of the Auditor General.
So having said all of that, I'll now move to the actual report. I was interested that there was a reference to the 2004 audit. There were suggestions made there. Your response, Madam Fraser, on page 6 of the spreadsheets in your action plan says, and I'm quoting:
In addition, the 2004 peer review suggested that the presentation of reports could be improved through the use of graphics and tables to present complex numerical data and footnotes showing sources of evidence. We consider that this suggestion is still valid.
The obvious question is why we have an outstanding recommendation that you agreed to in 2004 and still seem to agree to now. I'm just wondering why in the last six years you didn't implement it.