Thank you, Chair.
I obviously don't have a lot of time. I'll just focus on another example of the growing concern I'm having about the accuracy of what is being reported and the truthiness of what we're hearing. I gave one example with the submarines, and I think it's a pretty stark example of, if not misleading Parliament, coming about as close as you can to it without actually crossing the line. In this case it may have crossed the line, and that may be something that we look at when we're studying that report.
I want to draw your attention, sir, to page 9 in report number six. You don't need to jump to it; I'll read it to you from the report.
It's talking about the rate of claim settlement. Again, the government is bragging that they're doing certain things, but when you get in there and have a look, the story is a bit different. Subs is one example; this may be another good one.
You say, for example, that one claim you reviewed was first submitted in 1987. Probably some members here weren't even born then, something I'm getting used to when comparing theirs with my birth that year. However, I digress:
... one claim we reviewed was first submitted in 1987, and its processing time was just over 26 years before it was settled. However, the Department’s database showed that the claim’s processing time was just under 5 years.
Give me a bit more context for that, because again, that looks to me to be about as close to misleading Parliament as you can get and may indeed actually constitute misleading Parliament.
If you could, take just the moments left to give us a bit of the details, as you did on the sub deal. What's happening here? It actually took 26 years, but the government bragged it took less than five. What's the deal?