Excellent. That's very good to hear.
Here is a question to the Comptroller General. Obviously we understand that the government is trying to find savings, as we all are. There are some measures being taken along those lines to find efficiencies in program spending, but I note that in doing so, the number of audits has been reduced from 30 to 24 vis-à-vis value for money audits.
I'm sorry, this is not for the Comptroller General, but for the AG's office. On value for money audits, you've gone from 30 to 24 audits now. If we're looking for savings, if we're looking for efficiencies, wouldn't those performance audits be ideal to find those areas? Isn't it counterproductive to now have a reduction in those audits? Because that's where you'd actually find some of those savings.
Could you comment on that and on how we can reconcile that? We're trying to save money, but in doing so we reduce the number of audits that look at performance, which effectively really hurts our ability to identify areas in which we can find efficiencies?