The norm on that in terms of somebody doing a peer review on us is that there is one done during the mandate of each auditor general. The last peer review on our office was done in 2010, which was before my mandate started. We expect to do one probably later on in my mandate—maybe in 2018-19, somewhere out there—and have one done on our office to keep within that requirement of once within every mandate.
In terms of our activity, we participated in 2013 on the peer review of the United States Government Accountability Office. That peer review was led by Norway, but we also participated in that.
The year before, in 2012, we participated in the peer review of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. That one was led by Australia, but again, we had members on the team, because when a peer review is done, there is one national auditor general's office that is the lead on it, but then the team is put together of members from other offices in order to have that different view of practice. Every time we participate in that, it's very helpful to our auditors.
The last time—as I said, in 2010—that there was a peer review done on our office, it indicated that we had let our audit methodology perhaps get out of date. We hadn't been in a process of making sure that our audit methodology was being kept up to date. After that was done, there was a project put in place in the office to renew our audit methodology to make sure we brought it up to date, and now we have an ongoing process to prevent it from becoming outdated again. That was probably the biggest change we made on the basis of that peer review.
They're always very good exercises in terms of, when you're on the receiving end, helping you understand what you need to be improving on, and when you're participating in it, it helps you learn from the practices of other organizations and it gives you exposure to how they conduct audits.