We are very pleased to present our 2009 fall report, which was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons.
As you mentioned, I'm accompanied by Scott Vaughan, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, and Wendy Loschiuk and Richard Flageole, assistant auditors general.
The issues covered in this report are typical of the challenges facing government today. Our findings underscore the importance of thinking through the implementation challenges when policies and programs are developed or changed. Having a complete picture of what needs to be done and by whom, of how other programs will be affected and what risks are involved, can make the difference between a program that delivers results for Canadians and one that does not.
Program evaluations can be a valuable source of information for decisions to change, improve, or replace programs. The departments we audited said they are concerned about whether they can meet expanded requirements under the 2009 policy. In the departments we examined, evaluations covered only a relatively low proportion of total program spending. In addition, inadequate data limited the assessment of program effectiveness. Despite four decades of efforts, evaluations are still not providing enough reliable evidence about whether program objectives are being met.
Chapter 2 of our report looks at how foreign workers are selected for admission into Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has to design and deliver foreign worker programs that meet the needs of the labour market.
[Translation]
We found that the department has made a number of key decisions in recent years without properly assessing their costs and benefits, potential risks, and likely impact on other programs. Some of these decisions have caused a significant shift in the types of foreign workers being admitted permanently to Canada. There is little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy to best meet the needs of the Canadian labour market.
We also found that when work permits are issued for temporary foreign workers, there is no systematic review to ensure that job offers are genuine and that employers have complied with previous permit terms and conditions such as wages and accommodations. The problems we noted could leave temporary foreign workers in a vulnerable position and pose significant risks to the integrity of the immigration program as a whole. Citizenship and Immigration Canada needs to develop a clear vision of what each program is expected to contribute to Canada's overall objectives for immigration.
Let us now turn to the chapter on tax legislation. The Income Tax Act is one of the longest and most complex pieces of federal legislation. Taxpayers have the right to expect clear guidance on how to interpret the act so they can determine how much income tax they owe. Problems arise when the wording of the act is unclear or does not adequately reflect government policy. There is now a backlog of more than four hundred technical amendments that are needed. It has been eight years since Parliament passed a technical bill to amend the Income Tax Act.
[English]
When there are delays before proposed technical changes become law, taxpayers do not know the exact form the change will take, when it will apply, and how it will affect the tax transactions they have already completed. The Department of Finance needs to do more to bring the urgency of the problem to the attention of the government and Parliament, and it ought to review the way it manages this process.
We also have a chapter on electronic health records. Canada Health Infoway Inc. was created in 2001 as a not-for-profit corporation to lead the development and implementation of electronic health records across Canada.
Infoway has accomplished a great deal in eight years. It identified the key requirements and components of electronic health record systems and developed a blueprint for their design. It also ensured that projects put forth by the provinces and territories were designed to comply with its blueprint and standards for compatibility.
Infoway has made a considerable effort to report on progress, but the meaning of some figures it reports is not clear. For instance, it reports that 17% of Canadians live in provinces or territories where a complete electronic health record system is available. However, having a system available does not necessarily mean that health care professionals are actually using it.
This is a highly complex initiative. Meeting the significant challenges that lie ahead will take the collaboration of Infoway, all provinces and territories, and other stakeholders.
[Translation]
My report today also looks at how National Defence purchased vehicles that were urgently needed to protect Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada worked together to fast-track the purchase of these vehicles. In three of the four projects we looked at, National Defence has determined that the vehicles have met operational needs. The fourth project is nearly two years behind schedule and is projected to cost at least double the amount originally approved by the government. National Defence needs to develop a process geared to managing urgent acquisitions. It should also examine whether there are lessons from these projects that can be applied to its regular acquisitions.
We also examined how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Environment Canada have carried out the federal government's responsibilities for land management and environmental protection on reserve lands. There are few federal regulations that apply to environmental protection on reserves, and the federal government has taken little action to change this. As a result, people living on reserves have significantly less protection from environmental threats than other communities.
[English]
We found that most landfills on reserves operate without permits, monitoring, or enforcement by Indian and Northern Affairs, as do sewage treatment and disposal. We also found that despite the department's commitment to transfer more control to first nations over the management of their lands and resources, access to land management programs and training is limited.
A healthy environment and control over the management of lands and resources are critical to sustainable economic development. Without them, opportunities for first nations to improve their quality of life and approach the standard of health and well-being enjoyed in other communities are severely restricted.
Turning to emergency management, the government must be ready to respond quickly and effectively when emergencies arise. Canada needs to have a planned and coordinated approach in place so that federal, provincial, and municipal agencies know what part they will play in managing a crisis.
Public Safety Canada was created to coordinate the federal government's response to large-scale emergencies. It has developed an interim federal emergency response plan to coordinate activities in an emergency. But we found that the plan has not been formally endorsed by government. Until it is adopted, it will be difficult for Public Safety Canada to fulfill its assigned role.
[Translation]
Until it is clearly established how Public Safety Canada will work with other departments, it will be difficult for it to truly coordinate the federal response to emergency situations.
The last chapter of the report examines how the Canadian International Development Agency is implementing its commitments to key principles of aid effectiveness.
Donor partners and recipient countries told us that CIDA staff in the field are highly regarded and their efforts are appreciated. However, the complex and lengthy processes required to obtain approval for project funding have long been criticized within and outside the agency. We also found that the agency has failed to concentrate on fewer priorities, despite a commitment to narrow its focus.
Donor partners, recipient governments, and program staff are unclear about the agency's direction and long-term commitment. The nature of international development calls for stable, long-term programming, and CIDA needs a comprehensive plan for going forward.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have, but I would first propose that the commissioner present his findings to the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My report examines a number of areas critical to effective environmental management, starting with the importance of solid information.
[English]
Informed decision-making is at the heart of sound policy-making. The federal government needs science-based environmental information that is timely, robust, and accessible in ways that both identify patterns of environmental degradation and help programs concentrate on the most urgent environmental problems. Until data programs are woven together to track major changes over time in the quality of Canada’s environment, we are left with piecemeal approaches to protecting the environment.
The importance of good information is clear in our chapter on applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. More than 100 federal organizations are required to apply the act to projects that could impact the environment. Assessing the possible effects of projects early in a planning phase is a cornerstone of good environmental management. Identifying potential impacts such as pollution or habitat destruction before they occur allows for corrective action to avoid or reduce environmental problems.
[Translation]
In half the files we examined, the rationale or analysis was too weak to demonstrate if environmental effects of projects had been considered appropriately and whether actions were taken to mitigate them.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which administers the act, has not established a quality assurance program for assessments, although the act requires it to do so. Roughly 80,000 environmental assessments have been initiated since 1995. Yet, because it lacks a quality assurance program, the agency does not know how good the assessments have been and whether they have contributed to environmental protection.
[English]
Another chapter looks at the risk that certain toxic substances pose to the environment and human health. We note a number of significant control and monitoring systems to reduce toxic emission and to check levels of exposure among Canadians. We also note the need for improvements in how risks are managed. Lead and mercury, for example, continue to present risks. New research indicates that exposures to lead at levels currently considered safe may be in fact too high, underscoring a need for an overall risk management strategy.
[Translation]
It is critical that the government take stock of how well its actions are working and also consider new research and the results of monitoring in order to protect human health and the environment from the risks of toxic substances.
Current product labelling does not fully disclose the chronic risks posed by toxic substances in some common household products. As a result, Canadians are not fully informed about these risks and may not be taking appropriate precautions to protect themselves.
The third chapter of my report looks at the National Pollutant Release Inventory, or NPRI. Created in 1992, the NPRI provides Canadians with information about key pollutants in their communities. The NPRI is important because it helps to track releases and transfers of substances that can have a negative effect on the environment and on the health of Canadians.
[English]
Environment Canada does not provide inventory users with enough information to help them understand what data can be used for and where caution should be applied. Environment Canada has taken measures to improve NPRI data quality. However, these actions must be guided by an overall strategy and plan to improve data accuracy so that pollution tracking and environmental monitoring can rely on the best possible information.
Finally, Mr. Chair, the fourth chapter is my annual report on environmental petitions. We received 28 petitions this year. The issues most commonly raised include health, biodiversity, fish habitat, and environmental assessments.
Mr. Chair, we would be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Ms. Fraser, for your report. Judging from its tone, you seem somewhat concerned about how departments are managing and assessing their programs. Specifically, of the 23 programs evaluated in chapter one, inadequate data was available in 17 cases.
As you also know, substantial sums of money have been invested in computer systems. Is there a disconnect of some kind between the needs defined in the systems and the way in which programs are designed? Is that possible, or is it that the groups within the departments responsible for designing or developing programs do not communicate with technology management officers in order to define needs and gather the required information?
You also concluded in chapter one that of the departments audited, several expressed some concern about not having the capability needed to evaluate direct program spending, as required by the act. Do all departments share this concern?
You also seem concerned about the fact that departments call on contractors to evaluate direct program spending. Can you explain the government's reasons for taking this approach and give us your assessment of the measures taken by the government to reduce this practice?
These are my questions concerning chapter 1.
I also have some questions about the Canada Revenue Agency. There is currently a significant backlog of necessary technical amendments and the last income tax technical bill was passed in 2001. Can you explain to us the reasons for this delay? What is preventing the department from tabling a technical bill?
You also gave us a specific example involving non-compete agreements. For one thing, the failure on the part of the Canada Revenue Agency to act on tax law changes deprives us of substantial tax revenues, which opens the door to possible abuse. You also note that the Minister of Finance has announced his plans to propose amendments to the Income Tax Act, to address the case of businesses that had signed non-compete agreements. I'm thinking here, among other things, about the case of Mr. Black. This amendment, along with 150 others, was never introduced and at this rate, many files will not be reviewed. Considering the delay in reviewing CRA files, the agency will not be able to recover the lost tax revenues.
Can you give us any other examples? I flagged this particular issue because substantial sums of money are involved, but I was also wondering if technical amendments of this nature would affect some of the dormant business accounts at CRA ?
With respect to chapter one, we observed that the problem of not having relevant, complete data has existed for a very long time. We did not look at whether the problem had anything to do with information technology. Obviously, technology is one way of obtaining this information, but I believe that fundamentally, the problem is one of clearly identifying performance indicators and the data needed and, of course, of putting systems in place subsequently.
One also has to understand that in the case of a number of programs, it can be difficult to evaluate effects with specific figures. The evaluations may be more qualitative in nature. However, I think that objectives and performance indicators need to be more clearly defined so that subsequently, data can be obtained. This has been a long-standing problem, one that presents a challenge in terms of complying with the new policy whereby as of 2013, all direct spending programs must be evaluated every five years.
Departments also mentioned their evaluation capacity and the shortage of experienced evaluators. In the report, we also note the absence of standards and guidelines and the need for the Treasury Board Secretariat to do more to help departments in this regard.
If I could just draw a parallel with the internal audit function, several years ago, it was observed that internal audit services needed to become more professional. I think the same can be said for evaluation services. Some progress has been made with respect to internal audit services. In the years remaining, the government must address this problem.
Regarding the use of contractors by departments, the problem quite simply is one of resources, capacity and the knowledge to do the required work.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you all again. It's the same old gang.
I'd like to begin with chapter 8, “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness--Canadian International Development Agency”.
I know from personal experience that in many countries around the world, and particularly in Africa, CIDA is the face of Canada, and where CIDA succeeds, Canada is appreciated and recognized. Where it fails, the whole country pays the price in terms of the perspective.
The text of your opening statement says that “donor partners, recipient governments, and program staff are unclear about the Agency's direction and long-term commitment”.
I'd also like to turn to page 6 of that chapter. The last half of paragraph 8.7 says:
On 23 February 2009, the Agency formally announced--with Cabinet approval--its intention to focus its aid on 20 countries.
I'm hoping you can help me here. I'm active on the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, and we recently had an unprecedented meeting with 10 or 12 ambassadors. It's not very often that you get a dozen ambassadors in one room with one message. Their message was about Canada's shift of priority from Africa to other parts of the world. I'm certainly not going to get into what that evaluation is, but they came to us, and their main argument was that given the close relationship Canada has had with Africa and all its 53 or 54 component countries, they've seen us as one of their strongest friends, one of their best friends, one of those on whom they could rely no matter what. Their main message to us came as a result of our shift in priorities, leaving them out in the cold. They said they didn't understand why it seemed as though we were throwing our old friends overboard to make new friends.
As a result, we had a follow-up meeting with CIDA to find out what's going on and why. It wasn't a very good meeting, and I have to say that your chapter helps me understand why we had so much trouble. We've had a follow-up meeting to that, and at one point we finally got down that some kind of analysis was supposedly done about the various countries and the effectiveness of the money. It was the exact thing you're talking about that isn't happening, that kind of evaluation.
What's interesting is what we were told. These were bureaucrats, so they were doing as much as they could do and no more, but their response was that they couldn't give us any of that information because it's contained in advice to the minister. So by virtue of wrapping it in “advice to minister”, it's out of bounds for us and possibly out of bounds for you. I'd leave that to you.
Anyway, my question is whether the lack of focus and analysis that you have found could apply to this whole issue of the refocus that's taking place. Is much of the analysis that we would expect to be done and that we're told is done maybe not as thorough and therefore not as easy to defend as we're led to believe?
:
Before I move on to my next chapter, I'll say that reading your report in terms of some of that analysis and the country analysis led me to believe that.... When you're being denied information that seems fairly reasonable, what was the evaluation? Not the advice to the minister. Fair enough, that's out of bounds. The advice that came to me at the time? Okay, cool. But when I read your report, I'm thinking, well, maybe it's because the information isn't there. Maybe the analysis isn't being done. If they're not doing updated country-by-country analysis, then how can you determine whether a continuation of
x million dollars is going to give you what you need, or not, and therefore justify a shift to another country or another part of the world?
We're going to call them in on that one and we'll do some follow-up there.
The next one, as time permits, is on chapter 6, “Land Management and Environmental Protection on Reserves”. It's very disturbing to read this. Almost every time we touch this file, it's disturbing. If I can quote you from today, you said:
We found that most landfills on reserves operate without permits, monitoring, or enforcement by Indian and Northern Affairs, as do sewage treatment and disposal.
We also found that despite the Department's commitment to transfer more control to First Nations over the management of their lands and resources, access to land management programs and training is limited.
Now, in your report, under the “Conclusion”, on page 27, paragraph 6.93:
INAC and Environment Canada have not addressed significant gaps in the regulatory framework that protects reserve lands from environmental threats. Provincial and municipal environmental regulations and zoning laws that protect communities off reserves do not apply to reserve lands.
On page 16, paragraph 6.49, again I am quoting:
--meaning the government--
power and authority under the Indian Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Fisheries Act....
In the next paragraph it says:
In 1996, the parties who signed the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management identified four...environmental threats.... In a 2007 study, Environment Canada also identified significant risks on reserves that required priority attention, including landfill, solid waste, and hazardous waste...
This is going to come as a shock to a lot of Canadians that the federal government is responsible for all these environmental protections at a time when environment is, arguably, the first or second biggest issue facing us immediately right now. I'm trying to get a sense of why this has been allowed. And I know you can't answer a why--that's what I really want to know is why--but I can only go so far in getting information from you.
How serious is the abdication of responsible regulation in this area? Is it as bad as it seems? In other words, are there landfill sites or water treatment exposures into the air that would never be allowed anywhere else in Canada but are happening there?
:
Thanks to all, and thanks for your diligence. Certainly, as we participate in this evaluation of the apparatus of government, your thoughts are not only important; they're crucial.
If I might, I've listened to a few of your reports now, and if I could just offer a quick little overview for a second, I'll use the analogy of a ground fire. We've all witnessed forest fires and raging fires and raging infernos, and quite frankly, I think this whole group of reports is not that. But I will say there are some brush fires. There are some issues we have to deal with—and we not only could deal with but we should deal with—in order to not only solve some of the existing problems you've identified but hopefully to prevent others from happening as well. So your efforts are extremely appreciated.
I have a couple of quick penetrating questions, I would hope, but before I ask them, I hope the opposition members will allow me to say this. It is rare when the Auditor General awards a “gold star”, and when I saw that I honestly said, hey, all news isn't bad. So thank you very kindly for recognizing the efforts of management on the Canada Health Infoway; and of course, particularly when you contrast that with the provincial auditor's response on that, which was literally damning, I'm pleased to see that.
It also opens up a very, very serious concern of mine on that, because although we have a system that apparently is working very well—we're getting it together on the Infoway—you state, “However, having a system available does not mean health care professionals are using it”. Well, what good is it having a system if people aren't going to use it effectively? Why aren't they using it effectively? Is it resources? Is it training? Is it regulatory approval? What is the problem?
:
Thank you, witnesses, for again being here.
I go, Madam Fraser, to paragraph 2 in your original statement. I mention it only because I think it's important: “The issues covered in this report are typical of the challenges facing government today.” And here is the important part: “Our findings underscore the importance of thinking through the implementation challenges when policies and programs are developed or changed.”
That really outlines what the purpose of your audit is. We recognize through this audit that there are some things to change. When I read through the audit, I didn't see that anybody would say, no, I don't think these are things we should be doing. That isn't what we heard.
What we have found is that many of these situations have been ongoing, some of them for 30 or 40 years. So I want to say to the general public that I think we as a government, regardless of what government it is, need to be professional in all aspects, and when we see weaknesses within our organization, recognizing the size of government, we need to take steps.
What we have found in this report, from my take anyway, is that we have aspects that are moving more quickly than others. I guess that's likely part of what life is, unfortunately or fortunately. I'm wondering, though, when you do such reports—and I think some people may have been thinking something huge would come out of this, because we've been doing a lot in four years, quite honestly—would you find any major irregularities through this audit? Is that what would show up? When doing an audit like this within a particular department, would a major irregularity show up if there were one?
Then in the same chapter, on page 19, we have the first responder and the voice communications. Again, like Mr. Shipley, I hearken back to my city council days, and I can remember that even back then, which is getting further back every day, this issue was real. I know that in the last few years my home town, Hamilton, spent millions of dollars just to make sure they could communicate within our city and within the general region. But I don't know whether or not they have the ability to communicate on a larger scale, to interact provincially, federally, and with other municipal entities. It sounds to me as if your concern is that this may or may not be there.
And I recall also, Auditor General, yesterday you said that one of the things the government could have done was provide a little assistance as an incentive, given the fiscal pressures that municipalities are under.
Madam Fraser, you made some complimentary remarks about the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but despite solid Jesuit training, he didn't get a gold star. So I would like to explore how we can get there.
Certainly this has to be one of the most bracing, exciting, and complex elements of Canadian nation-building: immigration, the processing of applicants from around the world. There's no limit on the number of people who can apply on any given day, whether as foreign skilled workers or temporary foreign workers or in any of the other categories. It's an exercise of gargantuan proportions. The numbers you reflected in your report are absolutely massive.
One of those numbers is a good number. Even though you said there are some 600,000 applications in the system, that represents a 30% decline from where we were as of a couple of years ago, as I understand it.
With regard to foreign workers, the skilled worker program has been a significant success, however imperfect, and the wait times have gone down, in my understanding, from six years to about six months. As well, this government has welcomed a record number of immigrants to Canada.
For skilled workers, isn't the starting position the labour market surveys and labour market shortages in the provinces? We know that every province has labour market shortages and there are clear needs.
I am pleased to see that the improvements you are recommending have been accepted by CIC to clarify responsibilities and to conduct structural assessments of the genuineness of both employers and jobs offered. But I have a question.
I understand it would be great information to have--the job and whether the employer can afford to pay, whether they have an apartment for the person to stay in, etc., and to be able to quantify that. The department agrees to work on it, but my concern is that it sounds as if the Government of Canada would be acting like a giant job verification agency, not quite a job placement agency but a job verification agency. It would be very labour intensive. I am wondering how many people you'd have to hire to verify over 50,000 jobs a year, to call the employers or contact them and try to verify, maybe ask for financial statements. You'd have to set up a bureaucracy or beef up the bureaucracy considerably to do so.
In addition to that, how reliable would the information be? For example, if someone who ran a kitchen in a hotel got a call from CIC asking if there had been a job application from a person in Africa who wanted to be a chef, he'd say yes and fill out all the boxes and get back to running his kitchen. How reliable would that information be?
Economic conditions could change or the hotel could close and the person would come here. Wouldn't it be more reliable, or at least as reliable, for the person to know there was a labour shortage of that skill set in that area, in that province at that time, and that there were a number of jobs to go to?
Madame Fraser, with regard to the Income Tax Act, I'm sure no one would disagree that taxpayers have a right to know how much tax they owe so they can determine and plan their lives and their business. Having run my own business for many years, I can sympathize with that. In fact, every year I think this is the year that I don't have to hire an accountant to do my taxes, and every year I say, no, I'd better not this year. You want to check because you're always afraid you missed one deduction, or that you're going to pay too much, and you're going to treat yourself unfairly, so you end up paying accountants. It's confusing.
But with regard to the changes you wanted to see, the technical amendments, I think it's important to note that they were introduced in November 2006--and your report says that in the footnote--and again in 2007. And I'm quite sure they will be introduced to Parliament again when the parliamentary calendar allows. When that happens, in your view, will that solve the problems that you identified in your audit?
:
I think we have enough time left to deal with this matter. I believe everyone has received a copy of the motion. For the benefit of the committee, I will now read it:
In the matter of the contract awarded to Brookfield Global Relocation Services in 2009 as part of the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP)—a program whose contracts were reviewed by the Auditor General and found to contain inaccuracies and not to be “tendered in a fair and equitable manner,” as stated in her 2006 report, which was supported by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and welcomed by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services—
That the Committee ask the Auditor General to conduct an audit of the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) as of April 1999, including the tendering and awarding of the 2009 contract, and to present her findings to Parliament.
Mr. Chair, I believe the Auditor General identified a significant number of cases. She made us realize that the files do not always contain the reasons for the decisions made and that contract files are often incomplete, missing or subject to conflicts of interests.
Regarding this matter, the process was qualified as follows: “In 2006, Auditor General Sheila Fraser concluded in her annual report that the tendering process for relocation contracts was fraught with serious discrepancies and irregularities”. On August 18, 2009, it was announced that the contract had been awarded and that it was valued at about $150 million per year over five years, or at $750 million. We are talking about a substantial sum of money.
At the end of the competitive process, it seems that there was only one bidder, namely the company that had held the contract since 1999. Apparently, in this instance, officials had put themselves in a conflict of interest position. There were stories of trips to the Caribbean and to Alaska, and of golf games paid by the company. Companies that had taken part in the consultative process carried out by Public Works in 2008 again were critical of the process leading up to the awarding of the contract. Allegations were also made that the department was unable to answer the questions of those who suspected the company that had been awarded the contract was passing along the contracts to sell the homes being vacated to its own agents. These allegations were made by the former president of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers.
The committee met in camera last June. I am tabling this motion because the committee has a duty, in order to bring this matter to a close, to ask the Auditor General to examine this contract and to report back to Parliament.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I admire the diligence and tenacity of Madame Faille in proposing this; however, unfortunately I will not be able to support it.
On June 18 the committee had an in camera session with the departmental officials, and the committee concluded that it was satisfied with the department's actions. We adjourned following a motion by my colleague David Christopherson that read as follows:
That the committee do now conclude its study of the procurement process for the integrated relocation program, in relation to the committee's study of chapter 5, “Relocating Members of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and Federal Public Service”, of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada...
The committee's June 18 minutes state that this has basically been put to bed. Furthermore, an independent third party fairness monitor came out with this report, which I would like to table before the committee, Mr. Chair. They said the process was conducted in a fair, open, competitive, and transparent manner.
This committee thoroughly examined the AG's report of November 2006. We made a report with recommendations. The department came here in June and assured us that it had fully implemented all of the recommendations as well as those of the Auditor General, and the fairness monitor's report concluded that this was a fair process.
So I think we've had enough of this particular report, Mr. Chair.
To pick up on Mr. Kramp's concerns, he makes valid points, but I do think there are a couple of things to put in the mix of our consideration.
Number one, one of the reasons we concluded was not just that at that point our findings were relatively inconclusive, but that the bidding process was under way and we were very sensitive to getting involved in an ongoing procedure. So we had reviewed up to that point, but we were cognizant that this thing was under way right then and we had to be careful.
Number two, if memory serves me right, we were assured by department officials that there would be more than one bidder. Yet here we are; we ended up with just one.
My last point is just to add a little comfort level. It's really not going to be our decision as to whether to go on. This will go to the Auditor General. She will obviously review what we've done to date, and if she determines that we've taken this as far as an auditing process or an accountability process requires, then she will say no. If she agrees that there's something new or something further, then she'll make that decision. Our decision today is whether we want to place it in front of her for that review and consideration, and in light of the issues that are on the table, I'm comfortable supporting that today.