Thank you, Chair, and certainly welcome to our guests here today. Mr. Allen asked to be on the record, and I think we should also go on the record that we've been trying to facilitate this meeting for the past three weeks, and of course, had a motion on the floor to do just that. It was unfortunately blocked and grandstanding took place. The bottom line is you're here now, and thank you very kindly for appearing. Certainly that was the government's intention, as our motion illustrated, from day one.
What I would like to do is to talk about some of the challenges or discrepancies that your audit found. I think it's important that we deal with them.
A significant portion of your report related to the disagreement with the consistency of the costing methodology between PBO, between the Auditor General's office, and between DND. As always, it's crucial that we compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. We have some differences here, clearly. I see that as problematic. You certainly saw that as problematic, sir. I think we do need some clarification on that. As an example, DND appeared to calculate their amortization over a 20-year period, and your office used 36 years. That is only one of the differences.
So I'm wondering, can you explain to this committee why we did not have the consistency here in the costing methodology from each party in the process. Was there not a process clearly established? Where did this break down, and how could we improve it in the future?