Thank you, sir.
I have another area I want to pursue, but I can't leave this alone. By keeping it private and confidential you lose a lot of the deterrent value of the information to this age of privacy. I understand that's what we're into, but if you want people to understand there are consequences, having it known to other people in the system that Joe Smith or whoever has received his walking papers may make them think twice about doing this sort of thing themselves.
To the Auditor General, I've always assumed that in every department somebody's monitoring the continuing programs to see what's working and what's not working. If they find things they're administering that aren't working, they take corrective action to see if they can overcome those problems and get on with things. If they take corrective action, I assume they have some sort of evaluation process in place to determine whether that action really improved the situation.
To me this just sounds like good public administration and common-sense management. But I assume from your report that for me to assume that's going on with existing programs could be a very weak assumption.