Thank you, Chair.
The first thing I want to do—and I already had it down before he started—is to echo Mr. Arya. I think it's important that the deputy hear from, not just government members, who could be said to be self-serving in terms of supporting their own appointees, but also from the third party over here, which is about as far from real power right now as you can possibly get.
I want to say that, Deputy, I have found your accountability to Parliament, which is what this is about.... It's not us. This is the premier oversight committee of Parliament, and when people are brought here to be accountable, you're accountable to Parliament. Deputy, you have a very difficult file and have had difficult files previously, and I have always found you to be very forthright. You don't play games. When you're put on the spot, you respond honestly and with commitment, and you follow up. Your comment about taking data seriously is music to our ears.
What you have said here today is good, and I'm satisfied that you've made enough personal commitments in this action plan that I think it's going to happen. I want to join Mr. Arya and thank you, Deputy. You're doing an excellent job. You're getting close to the gold standard in terms of what I look for from a deputy, and, as you know, that's not an easy ladder to climb. My faith is in your personal commitment to making this happen. I believe you.
General, not so much, sir. Now, I mean this sincerely. You said you weren't sure which criticisms I was talking about. A quick read of the report shows you that there were data problems. The gaps in services were the same. The training is not being done in a coordinated way. The duty to report has caused a problem that wouldn't have been there if it had gone through the original recommendations. That's just the beginning of it. If you want to drill down, you'll maybe understand why the deputy approaches this committee the way she does.
Page 25, 5.109, “What we examined”, and this is the AG.
I'll leave you, sir, to answer or not. I'll leave it rhetorical, if you wish not to answer, and if you want to answer, I'll be keenly interested in what it is.
It states:
What we examined. We examined whether the Canadian Armed Forces adequately oversaw Operation HONOUR to know whether it was working as intended, and whether it was being improved continuously.
Then 5.110, page 25:
Independent, external oversight. In 2016, the Chief of the Defence Staff—
That's your boss, right?