Thank you, Chair.
I reiterate that thanks as well, Mr. McPhee.
I want to ask you about your second recommendation to the Auditor General of Canada, which is referring to reinforcing in the staff the need for documentation on electronic working papers. It sounds pretty serious, and I'm trying to get a handle on how serious it is.
There is reference to examples where the electronic working papers didn't contain sufficient documentation. There is reference to documentation gaps. On occasion the report clearance summary was subject to revision, and unadjusted errors found were not adequately collated, documented, or reported. I'm still trying to get up to speed on Auditor General jargon, Auditor General speak.
I've been on this committee for a year, and what we ultimately get is a parade of ministry staff who come before us with a giant mea culpa and they say “We agree with the Auditor General, and we thank the Auditor General, and we've already begun to fix these problems.” It's like no one will ever challenge the Auditor General and say “You've reached an incorrect conclusion”, or “We think you are wrong on this”, at least not publicly. We don't get that in front of this committee.
I'm trying to get an understanding. There is no evidence that there are any errors or omissions or that there were missed conclusions or missed opportunities. Was your report saying that it's possible because of these problems, or that you think it was likely that it happened?