I don't think a direct connection can be made between the poor performance we sometimes noted last year and the fairly satisfactory performance we saw this year. These are different institutions which were selected for different reasons.
We will be meeting with these same institutions again. Institutions complained about the fact that, in the past, we would release our report in May and, if it included poor ratings, we would meet with people at the same time to tell them how they could improve. We would then send observers in July to take another look. We were told that there was not enough time to bring in the necessary changes and see improvements.
We felt that this complaint was warranted. So, unless there were special reasons to do so, we agreed not to go back and see the same institution the following year. As a result, an institution will have at least two years to try and make improvements. So, one cannot conclude that these are the same institutions discussed in the previous report which are showing improvement and contributing to the progress that has been made.
In terms of regulations, I believe the Treasury Board should have the authority to provide direction. That can mean making regulations, but that is not necessarily the approach that will be taken. At the present time, the Treasury Board does not have the authority to tell an institution what it has to do to be more successful. That is a capacity, an authority and a power it does have in relation to other parts of the Act. So, that is a hole in the current Part VII of the Act, and we are recommending that it be filled.