I don't know if I could actually respond on whether it's been corrected or not. I certainly hope those audits and the actions taken subsequently have made it very clear to the quasi-judicial bodies that they are accountable for their management. The fact that they might need independence to render their decisions does not mean they are not accountable and shouldn't be accountable, for example, to the Treasury Board Secretariat or to other central agencies as to how they're managing. I think the introduction of the MAF, for example, with their now having to present on the management of their agencies, is an indication of this as well.
I think that was perhaps more of an explanation when it was dealing with the officers of Parliament than perhaps with the ombudsman. The issue, if I recall, with the ombudsman was in part that the processing and the transactions were going through a department and that the department was accepting what came in without challenging it. The people within the agency, moreover, weren't always necessarily aware of what was going through until after the fact. So there was confusion, too, around roles and responsibilities, and the fact that people just didn't speak up.