Thank you.
I think we will probably leave it. I will ask one question. We've talked a fair bit about the five areas that you deemed least important, and I think when Canadians look at the topics that you deemed you wouldn't audit....
Cybercrime, we see more and more cybercrime all the time. If there were an attack here in Canada and your report had said there was a deficiency in this area or in that area, I think it would be troublesome to every Canadian and certainly to every parliamentarian, regardless of which side of the House they sit on.
For the protection of our north, this last week we've had a lot of questions about our north coming from our neighbour to the south—sovereignty of the north and, indeed, protection of the north. That's part of what plays out in sovereignty.
These are topics that are of extreme importance to Canadians, but when you deemed them the least important, was it because they had such good internal audits taking place that in the past there had never been a problem with those, so you looked at it and said that their internal audits are solid and you were generally certain of that?
If I were the head of any department, the fact that there was an audit coming would be an accountability measure that I would always be working forward to. It's as we've said in the past: A certain audit strikes a certain degree of fear into most Canadians, but a department expects it. It's an accountability measure.
What were the criteria around “the least important”?