Okay, but my difficulty is that operating principles would be the rubric under which this is generated, but it's not binding. So they may show it where it's convenient and they may not show it where it's not convenient, and they wouldn't be out of bounds.
If I can, I do want to pick up on that. In her report, the Auditor General gave examples of things that were followed up on. It's terrible. It's terrible. The example of chapter 3 in the December 2008 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.... This is the example that's given, and I'll just read some of it here. This is for those that are followed up on in terms of the trusts and so on. And this is what we're getting:
1.) The Department does not know to what extent its environmental programs have improved the environment.
--that could be a problem--
Departmental reporting is limited because it does not monitor and report on program results beyond outputs, such as the number of completed water projects...
2.) The Department's allocation of operating resources among the Environment Chapter's contribution programs was not supported by adequate information.
3.) The development of the National Land and Water Information Service was poorly managed.
So even where they do bother to provide conditions, the follow-up doesn't seem to be that they're doing a very good job. We seem to lose when they don't give detailed commitments and we lose when they do. So how do we turn the lose-lose into a win-win?