Mr. Chair, no system is perfect and I think it would have been surprising to me if there hadn't been issues identified. That's the role of the Auditor General.
As they say, every program always needs to look at itself in terms of ways to make improvements. Certainly, measures were put in place in 2012. There have been enhancements made to the program, so I wouldn't want to leave the impression there has been no system or no process in place.
I think we have had some very effective measures. The question is, were they good enough? I think clearly the Auditor General has helped to identify the fact that we need to better and we need to do more, so we have taken that on board.
I think the issue from the Auditor General's point of view that we have to take very seriously is how do we make sure that we continue to follow up on these things, that we deliver what we say that we are going to commit ourselves to and that we have a continuous process, and that it isn't the Auditor General only having to tell us where the gaps or weaknesses are, but that we actually have measures in place. That's where our quality assurance, quality control processes, are important and will be important, to make sure we are continuously learning how we can do better.
We know that fraud can change. People come up with sophisticated means of finding ways to get around the system. We have to make sure that we keep on top of that and that we're always making our system responsive and sensitive to that.