Thank you.
I agree completely with Mr. Christopherson on the importance of the work and the essence of this committee. Some of the answers that we've had to the questions today are somewhat troubling.
I want to go back to your answer to Mr. Davidson's question about the five cancelled...or what were described as either the least important.... I can't remember the other characterization that you used. Every report that I've heard at this committee since I got to this committee was extremely relevant and important to an operation of a department of government and revealed deficiency that was very important for any concerned Canadian who wants to see a service delivered by their government.
If we were at the point where we were receiving reports that seemed somewhat trivial, reports that didn't really have any major concerns in them, I might accept that you have reports that could be cut without harming your overall mandate. However, I have to assume that, with any report that you decided not to write or any audit that you decided not to perform, we've now lost an important piece of accountability.
The Office of the Auditor General is no different from any other department. You have to be accountable for the money that you expend, and we have a responsibility at this committee to hold you accountable for your spending. That was a troubling answer to the question we had before, and it's not one that we're going to be able to solve at this committee.
Can you elaborate at all on what you didn't audit as a result of capacity shortfalls?