Thank you, Chair. I appreciate another round.
I want to say to Mr. Gallivan that I really liked what I heard you say about being proactive with the smaller amounts. If there's an example of exactly what we are talking about—and I thank Mr. Sarai for focusing on that—it's the thing about unfairness. On the one hand there's lots of money, and part of the process is that we'll take a look and see if you should get some of that back, and on the smaller stuff—again, the little guy, the one who's easy to push around—we say, “Nah, we won't do that.” Introducing that element of fairness is really the key, at least for me. That's what's missing—fairness.
As you know, that's a major Canadian trait. We like to think we're fair-minded people. I think people have a right to expect that from a powerful, important and potentially intrusive agency like the one you both operate, so I thank you for that. That was good news.
On page 7, in paragraph 7.41, again this speaks directly to what we were just talking about. It reads:
We also found that Agency policies and procedures defined circumstances to waive or cancel interest, but did not define the period of time considered to be an undue delay. The Agency left this to the auditors’ discretion.
Any time there's discretion, there is the opportunity for corruption.
My question is to the Auditor General's office. I would assume—or you would have said something, but I want to reinforce it—that you found absolutely no evidence or concern around potential corruption on the part of individuals who have the power to waive big amounts of money that someone either pays or doesn't have to pay.
Please just give me some assurances.