When the Auditor General tabled her report, I was pleased because I felt it was important for the government and the House of Commons to be aware of the appointment process, timelines and delays. I am not a lawyer, but I think that the Auditor General legitimately wants to report on these things to Parliament because they can have a major economic impact.
Take the example of the Champlain Bridge board of directors. It is important to hear from the Auditor General that people are not being appointed any longer to that board or that major accidents are taking place, or that there are major costs associated with that.
We can also look at the additional training costs that occur because appointments are not made or are delayed or are based on skills, abilities and the personal suitability needed for these positions. Mr. Goodman's document talks about this. I am not certain that these are really the usual recruitment criteria. They are criteria to politicize the process and carry out a series of appointments.
That being the case, my question is for Mr. Goodman. The Minister of Immigration indicated in April that 90% of the positions had been filled. Is that correct?