It's good to see you again. Thank you all for being here.
Starting with the focus of the audit, it states the following in paragraph 4.6:
This audit focused on whether Global Affairs Canada met its physical security needs at missions abroad to protect its staff and assets.
The overall message in paragraph is:
Overall, Global Affairs Canada had not taken all measures needed to keep pace with evolving security threats at its missions abroad.
Further, in the conclusions in paragraph 4.78, it states:
We concluded that Global Affairs Canada did not fully meet its physical security needs at missions abroad to protect its staff and assets.
I find this really surprising for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which is that in terms of governance, like it or not, security is a huge issue. In your department, it's what you do. I was really surprised and disappointed that something so important in a department that deals with security as its major focus would have these problems with obvious stuff. This isn't like deep intelligence and the analysis going wrong. These are basic things. It's really disconcerting when you think about how easily things can turn.
One of the greatest examples—and it's an extreme example, but a real one—was Iran in 1979. Going from no problem at all to all of sudden a crisis that can bog down a government and a nation for years, if not decades, can happen in a blink. These are the first lines of defence. I just find it passing strange.
I'll just leave that there. If you want to comment on that in some way, you can. Otherwise, I'm just going to move on to my questions.
I'm going to pick up where you were just recently. You talked about managing projects. There's been a vulnerability for governments for years, as we know. However, the Auditor General makes reference in paragraph 4.63 to the following:
Other federal entities that deliver security projects internationally have knowledge and expertise that, in our view, could benefit Global Affairs Canada. For example, Defence Construction Canada runs construction and engineering projects internationally, many with unique security requirements. It delivers most of its projects for National Defence, but it also provides services to other government entities, such as Communications Security Establishment Canada. In our 2017 special examination, we found that Defence Construction Canada did a good job
—shout out to them—
of managing construction projects and contracts. For example, it carried out contracts according to the client's requirements, and it met deadlines and budgets.
How about that? You said there are vulnerabilities, but the Auditor General was able to point to a major player in the development of projects that does a really good job. From what I know about security, when you're starting to talk of Communications Security Establishment Canada, we're getting into some really serious stuff. These have to be trusted folks.
Why didn't you go down this road? Why did you let yourself...?
The last thing I'll say concerns the chart on page 13. Holy smokes. Where were the grown-ups in the room?