Well, let me say two things.
One is that you've picked out a small portion of my letter back. As my remarks said, both we and the Auditor General, when she set out the scope for the mandate, indicated that the scope actually should be related to the process of the appointments, and we agree with that. Indeed, our interaction with the Office of the Auditor General was whether the audit, and elements of it, stayed within the four corners of that or whether there were some elements that may have gone outside that. We have raised, interactively with the office, observations with respect to insufficient appointments being made during the audit period, and the vacancy rates could be interpreted as dealing with the exercise of ministerial discretion that should be outside the scope of the audit, as we both said.
I also indicated in my letter, which you quoted from, that in any piece of legislation, the provisions set out in the Auditor General Act are subject to interpretation, and we may have differences of view on this. But I think it's really important that when it comes to mandate issues, which are so important, discussions take place and both the Auditor General and PCO engage in a constructive and transparent dialogue and make views known. And that's what we've done with the Auditor General and the committee.