I could pursue this line of questioning, but there are some other issues I'd like to address.
First, in the last round of questioning I asked you what happens when departments don't follow your recommendations. I want to go back to that and talk about implementation of performance audit recommendations. It was noted that departments and agencies are responsible for taking their own corrective action. We've established that four years is the reasonable timeframe in which they should implement your recommendations, and that of the 196 recommendations you made, 55% were fully implemented and 29% were substantially implemented.
Our chairman just noted that there had been a significant issue at AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. You had previously identified that there had been strategic issues and deficiencies at AECL--in particular, strategic challenges that needed to be resolved relating to completion of licensing, dedication of isotope facilities, and securing of long-term funding for replacement of their aging facilities.
Can you talk about what other deficiencies existed at AECL at the time? And if you would, could you talk about the bigger issue, about how you determine which recommendations are implemented and to what degree? How can the Office of the Auditor General improve the rate of implementing your recommendations?