Roughly. I'm just trying to make the point that the more frequently you can report back to Parliament, the better. On some of these public policy issues, different political parties could go different ways.
I have a few more questions. I'm going to throw a few of them out, and perhaps you could comment.
The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament as well, of course, and I wonder if you have any protocols with them. I'm trying to think of examples. Let's say they were doing the work in the area of ethanol. You're not ready to release your report, but you've obviously reached some conclusions. They might be doing an audit of NRCan, on value for money or something. It seems to me that it might be in some cases appropriate that information be shared, even though Parliament has not been fully informed, because you're both officers of Parliament. I'm just curious if you have any protocols there.
Second, on the performance audits, how do you establish which audits to do? What priority-setting process do you have?
Finally, I'm a little puzzled with these petitions. The petitions come in to you. You say here that the ministers respond, but wouldn't you have a responsibility or an obligation to make sure that the minister or the department has responded fully and completely? As well, are there any frivolous petitions that you would sort of discard? What obligation do you have to a petitioner to respond that you're not going to be doing any more work on this, or the department won't be, etc.?