If I can, Chair, I'll just leave you with the notion that it might be worthwhile for us to identify just what role the committee is going to play in this, so that we're not playing catch-up down the road, and that whatever part that is, we're satisfied it is the appropriate one and that it's thought out ahead of time.
One of the charts on your appendix 1, just for my reference point, the “percentage of performance audits reviewed by parliamentary committees”.... I was disappointed, if my information is correct, that the environment commissioner's audits are not dealt with the same way that we do it. We're not perfect, but they are laid out the same way, they're done the same way. I would have expected that the environment committee would receive the reports and do what we do, which is to hold some hearings on them in as much time as is available and given the importance. They don't do that. They do what we do, which is the one meeting where you present the whole thing, I believe, and they participate in ours and do one of their own, but that's it. They don't do an in-depth follow-up.
So I'd be interested to know the policy for what you do with chapters that affect certain ministries. Do you send those directly to those committees? Do you send them to the departments, and there is an expectation? How do they move around? In particular, given that the environment commissioner is under your shop, I'd like to know your thoughts specifically on what we can do about that to try to change and get the proper attention to those reports.