I understand that, but I'm looking at the specific ones that the Auditor General looked at. Either you do know or you don't know.
If you don't know, that's fair because it's a pretty specific question and I don't expect you, Mr. Marsland, to have every document in front of you. I appreciate the fact you may not know exactly why it didn't happen, but you may want to tell the committee at some point in the future why it didn't. It may well fit inside those parameters. That's fair.
The Auditor General also talked about the department “not systematically evaluat[ing] these expenditures to determine whether they achieved the expected results and whether they were performing as intended”. If I look at page 2 of the text of your opening remarks, sir, you say, “After a measure is implemented, the Department monitors the performance of the tax system on an ongoing basis...”.
The tax system is very broad, I understand, but he said that you didn't evaluate a certain number of these programs and you seem to be alluding on page 2 that you in fact do. Was this just a question of oversight or was this a question of what we're getting to this one or what exactly happened? The Auditor General was clear that you didn't. You're suggesting that you do.
It would be helpful to know whether.... Obviously it didn't get done because you're not refuting it. The issue is, why wasn't it done if that was your intention, because you said you'd do it. And if you didn't do it, as the Auditor General said, then why didn't you?
And, sir, when I say “you”, I don't mean you personally, of course.