The problem is that, if you take the Auditor General's numbers—and I'm going off the top of my head here just recalling—if you take 70 and then you take another half of the remainder, there's 10 that never got contacted, and you take roughly half of them, which you said were not documented, even at that point you end up with 120 out of 190, 66%. It's just a low number. I'm not sure that training is necessarily the answer here. What I'm trying to get at is what the answer is, because with every single audit that's done, the department comes in and says, “Oh, we're instituting that; we're dealing with it already”. I think that's the way the process should work and hopefully it's not just lip service and there's actually action to follow.
Where I get concerned in audits is when the responses to them don't match actually the results that we've seen to date, because it may move it 5% or 10%. In some of these cases, the wrong case at the wrong time is a Canadian citizen in harm's way, severe harm's way, and that's what we're dealing with. What else is going to happen to fix this?