Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's nice to see you again, Madam Fraser and team.
As you know, I take this role very seriously in this committee, in terms of holding both the government and the bureaucracy accountable, and I've been frantically trying to think of how I can make sure we're holding you accountable too, because that's our job. But you do such a great job, the fact of the matter is that most politicians on the Hill would give their right arm to have one-tenth of the credibility you have with the Canadian people. So I'm just going to push on a little. As far as I'm concerned—and I think this reflects the view of the committee, and certainly of the last committee—you do a fantastic job for the Canadian people. You really do.
I watched you closely both when things were riding high and everything was going great and also when the criticism came, and what impressed me most was that you were always the same, always having the same level of professionalism and the same approach. That speaks volumes to your professionalism and that of your department and those who work with you.
So on behalf of the people I represent, I certainly thank you for the job you do. But watch out, because we're still going to be watching you, as our job is to watch everybody.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, I want to jump to an issue that's been referred to here in a front-page story in the Ottawa Citizen. Rather than talk about the substance, I'd like to talk about the process, to the extent that the most I knew of it, as a member of this committee, was exactly what's reflected in the documents in front of us, meaning the May 2006 status report and what the subject matter was.
We had a little more information at the last meeting, Mr. Chair, which just spoke to the questions you were attempting to ask and get answers to, but we had nothing at all in terms of the substance of what your department found.
Then there was a notation that there would be another matter related to Parliament's control of public spending. Of course, everybody's political antennae went up, as you'd expect, and there was some apprehension on the part of the some as to what exactly that might mean.
I'd like to know your first thoughts on the appropriateness of this and your reaction to one of your reports that's supposed to be secret until formally tabled. Either it's wrong, in which case this is the end of story and the report will have to deal with it, or could you go on about this? Is this okay, and if it's not, how do you feel about it and what are your thoughts?