I have a couple of thoughts on that. I think that the committee is raising a very important point. One of the things that we're seized with in our department is the fact that if we want to have continuity in being able to check whether or not things are being complied with, we need to work at the front end. We need to work on how data is tracked, and we also need to do after-the-fact checking.
To be specific about the tracking of allegations, since the report of the Auditor General, we have modified our allegation logs to make sure that we standardize how we capture the information. This is so that we can do the proper follow-up, to see and track some of the measures that we have put in place. If we have started an audit, a forensic audit, or an investigation of some sort, we can actually track until completion what happened to that allegation. They are recorded in the database, and we are capable of asking, on any given day, where we are on all the allegations that we have received.
We have now also included the status of any recommendation that may be coming out of those various ways of investigating those allegations. I'm also very seized with the fact that whatever comes out of these, even if they're unfounded, sometimes they can reveal the fact that some of our employees may not be properly trained.
We don't stop at saying that the allegation was founded or unfounded. We push it a little further and ask ourselves what we have learned from this. We want to know if there is an awareness that we need to extract in order to feed it back into the front end so that people understand, or so that we can actually correct whatever we see. Even if there is no mismanagement or reason for disciplinary measures, we try to extract the learning from every allegation. We do this to address the issue of transparency but also to correct the training that we're providing so that we mitigate errors as much as possible.