I have a really, really short one on this.
Given the examples we found in Indian and Northern Affairs—you've heard the story and know the issue—and with the process you have, would the criticisms contained in the Auditor General's report find their way to a deputy minister's evaluation even if they had long left? Is there a linkage? This ties in with something Mr. Williams asked, but where there's been that kind of criticism, and where you can identify a deputy, does that ever get factored in? He's not there now, but the report covers that time period.
That's the sort of accountability we're talking about, that somebody has underperformed, but because they've been shuffled along, deliberately or otherwise—let's say otherwise—they manage to skirt and avoid the whole issue of responsibility. Yet we have this outrageous circumstance in this one department that has been amplified, at least, because of all the different ministers, and clearly none of them really has their arms around it. Does it follow? Do you actually take that Auditor General report and say we need to keep this in mind when we're evaluating?
Your report just came out now, but it does affect who they are and the work they've been doing for our government, even if they aren't there at this moment.