That's a very complex set of questions. I have to go back to the Auditor General's report to see whether in fact she said “inadequate”.
This is a very large, very complicated department. The reality is that the organization, on the financial side, is planned extremely well. It tends to be, and it has traditionally been, more of a bottom-up planning exercise than a top-down strategically driven exercise, for a whole variety of reasons that go back into the 1980s and the 1990s.
My view is that what the Auditor General did, and what actually helped us crystallize much of our own thinking, was to identify certain gaps in our strategic and planning architecture, as well as in specific issues around my responsibilities and role as the accounting officer and the need to make sure that we have the right kinds of forums and the right kinds of decisions, or the right kind of information flowing into that forum, to make sure that at the end of the day I would actually have what I needed to be accountable for all the resource decisions in the organization.
When we spoke to the public accounts committee and submitted our management action plan, it was extremely well received. We have been on this in a very thorough and intense way since probably last February. We have our governance right. We have our decision-making forums and control points right. We are completing the alignment that is required between our strategic planning architecture and our actual business allocation processes, and we will have that right as we get into the following year.
So the Auditor General was actually quite comfortable that we're on the right track to address the gaps that she'd recognized.