The Auditor General's report didn't actually look at our evaluation and performance function. The Auditor General's report looked at the extent to which the agency had followed through on its aid effectiveness plan from early 2000 or 2002 and whether or not that had been followed through in terms of actually embedding into our planning documents and our programming documents, etc.
I think the Auditor General's report shows that, although there was good work going on the ground, there were some weak links in the chain of command. We have remedied that. In terms of its evaluation performance, the agency actually has an extremely strong evaluation function, as recognized in its management accountability framework results. We do 100% evaluation of our programs. We are leaders within the OECD DAC in terms of our evaluation function, and we are trying to get joint evaluations with other donors so that we can aggregate and magnify our results and also have less transaction costs on our donor countries.
CIDA has also been very strong in terms of performance management and results-based management. Again, it's an area of strength for the agency. The Auditor General wanted to see more evidence that this is integrated into all of our planning documents, which is a very fair comment. As a function, however, we are very strong.
I would also like to add that CIDA has an independent evaluation committee drawn from people outside the agency—which is, I think, novel inside the Government of Canada—so that we can better challenge and critique ourselves and learn from our results.