Mr. Chair, we commissioned the work by Pricewaterhouse because the nature of SIN management in the SIR is one of continuous improvement. Knowing that the Auditor General had planned a follow-up audit, knowing it would be reported in February 2007, and knowing as well that we've been working very hard on improving the SIN, we wanted to know if there were things we could do before the Auditor General reported, to continue to make progress in the areas identified in 2002, and then fold in the recommendations of the Auditor General with the ongoing work that we'd already started from Pricewaterhouse. We'll probably do something like that again, going forward, rather than waiting for the next follow-up audit, getting an independent view of whether or not we're on the right track with this program.
We asked Pricewaterhouse to look at the areas of recommendation that the Auditor General had worked on in 2002. The report itself is available on our website in detail, but I'd be happy to table the comparison of the OAG recommendations and the Pricewaterhouse findings. What you'll see are very similar conclusions, not surprisingly. Pricewaterhouse told us what the Auditor General was going to say in February. There were areas where progress had been satisfactory, but they also made recommendations for further improvement in those areas, and we're working on those; and there were areas that weren't quite as good, and the Auditor General has observed them as well. We'd already started the work to move the yardsticks when the Auditor General reported.