I understand and I heard what the Auditor General said about how there were different reasons why things happened. But I was really concentrating on the fact that there were some that weren't--quote, unquote--shovel ready. Because, knowing that world--because I came out of it--if a project is not scoped out, it should never have been presented. So if it isn't shovel ready, it's not scoped out.
But Mr. Smith, if I may, when we talk about jobs reporting, we've heard numerous times about all these numbers being bandied about. The Auditor General was quite clear in saying...I'll quote from point 1.64: “In their reports to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we found that, for the infrastructure programs we audited, departments used different units of measure and methodologies to estimate the number of jobs created...”.
So I guess my question is, how trustworthy were the numbers? Because at one point the word “anecdotal” was used in the Auditor General's report, which is not a very firm number, I might add, for those who work in the numbers area. That's more a politician's jargon when it becomes anecdotal, rather than your firm numbers.
The subsequent question is—because I know my time is going to be up, Chair—are the numbers firmer now in the sense that the methodology is more precise?