Ms. Carruthers, I think you're avoiding the question, though. This is a grave problem. It speaks to the rule of law that rules weren't followed. We're supposed to be standing for and championing the rule of law on the world stage, and we have rules for a reason. You or others can say that you don't think particular rules are that important or significant, but rules were not followed in about a quarter of cases, and documentation that should have been available wasn't.
I'm asking you a very specific question: What message does it send that when we're trying to project a message about the rule of law on the world stage, a quarter of Global Affairs contracts are seemingly not complying with rules?