Okay, thank you.
My next question, again, is related to paragraph 1.42, and I know that my colleague Mr. Giguère has already raised some pieces around this, but what I found in the report that stuck with me was that you indicated that the secretariat officials stated to you in their audit that they had conducted some analyses on other pension designs, but at the same time they were not prepared to share any of the analyses, any of the information, and any of the evidence to support the design of the plan and the steps that they had taken. This causes me grave concern, because we're dealing with thousands of Canadians who are very dependent upon what happens and on how these plans are being managed to ensure the sustainability of it is there for them and for their families.
I think all of us in this room as well as everyone else who's in a position in Parliament want to ensure that those guarantees are there for Canadians. I have great difficulty always when I am asked to take someone's word that they've looked at something and that this is the best possible option. I'm looking at it from the view of people who work in the RCMP, the Canadian Forces, and the public service, and I'm saying to myself, “Is this acceptable?”
So my question would be to the Auditor General. How can you properly do the analysis that you need to do if you don't have the information and the evidence to support the audits that you're working on?
And I would say to Mr. Watson, why would you not want to share this information to verify that the Government of Canada has made the best decisions possible in the interest of Canadians?