I'm just double-checking exactly how we have stated that in our report. We'll find that for sure, to see what exactly we've stated on that in terms of a target.
Fundamentally, we have noticed that it has gone, as you said, from 48% to 30% to 24%. The target percentage of performance audits to be studied by parliamentary committees is 65%. Again, we know that this is not something we are totally in control of, so we present the audits.
As I go back further, just looking at the schedule I have in front of me—this is not something that was given to the committee—in 2008-09, it was at 57%; in 2009-10, 68%; in 2010-11, 62%; and then 48%, 30%, and 24%. As well, we had established a target I think a few years ago, when it was back in that 50% to 60% range, and we established it at 65%.
So it's concerning, I guess, for us, trying to understand this. Does it mean that we are producing reports that are of less interest to parliamentary committees? Does it mean that we are producing more reports than the committees can handle? It raises a number of questions like that, and I think that's simply the reason why we put that in our opening statement, just to remind the committee of the percentage of reports that are getting a hearing. The committee can take that as information for its own deliberation.