I'm going to go out on a limb. I've heard a lot of answers to a lot of questions I've asked, and, pardon the pun, but many times they are defensive answers. I'm liking the answers. What I'm liking is that I'm not hearing a lot of gobbledygook that I don't understand. When I hear this, it usually suggests that this is being done deliberately. We've all been there. I'm very impressed, I have to say, with the specificity of what you're doing, and the bringing in of external factors. It really sounds like you're actually doing it, as opposed to just trying to get through this meeting, which has been an ongoing problem for us. I may have to eat those words, but I have to tell you, deputy, that I appreciate it especially when you take your criticisms. Nothing drives us crazier than somebody who comes in and starts making up nonsensical defences for things. It's better to just say you were wrong, and fess up to it, and let's get on. I'm guardedly optimistic, but history slows me down from going any further than that.
On life-cycle costs, and I'm quoting from the report, “Treasury Board policy requires that a department’s investment plan take into account not just the acquisition of assets but their full life-cycle costs, including...costs...”. The office “found that the most recent National Defence Investment Plan from 2014 did not include full life-cycle costs for the six types of equipment we examined”.
I think you may have touched on this, but I'd like that closed. I gather you're now doing that?