Fine. Thank you. I just didn't know if you had taken that into account in your evaluation of outstanding receivables, but I'm quite comfortable with your explanation on that, and certainly I think CRA, given the opportunity, should come forward with that in testimony. So I will certainly ask that, and I do appreciate it.
As Mr. Van Kesteren has stated, I also have a significant number of agricultural producers in my riding. There's a little bit of a contradiction in section 1.33 of your report, and I wonder if you could just give me some clarification. Under evaluating the effectiveness of programs regarding Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, you state that “evaluations should only be counted for coverage once they are completed, because planned evaluations can be delayed or cancelled.”
However, paragraph 1.52 of your report subsequently outlines two important benefits of ongoing evaluations. So we have completed versus ongoing evaluations. This contradiction appears to be consistent throughout the report. So perhaps you could explain and articulate your position on why they continually contradict themselves in the report. To someone like me at least, that appears to be the case. Could you give me some justification for that?