One of the things you outlined in your report that was disappointing for me to learn is that only 30% of the cases you review are actually looked at by the committee. I believe that the work done by the Auditor General's office is done with the sole purpose of keeping everybody to a higher standard or implementing best practices that could always work better for the public and for governments. So seeing that figure is somewhat disappointing.
When you do these performance audits and the particular pieces that are reviewed by committees as opposed to those that aren't, have you ever measured what the success rate is from one to the other; whether there is more implementation of practices and recommendations once they are reviewed by committee or not?