Thank you, Chair.
Here are just some personal thoughts. I don't care how damning the report is. If it's really damning, then what it is, it is. My concern is the relevance of the report. How beneficial is the report? How helpful will the report be to the government, whichever that may be, to be able to address concerns? Are those concerns still relevant? Are those concerns accurate?
I don't need to go back in history and rewrite history. I just want to be able to make recommendations from this committee that make sense, that are going to address a problem should it exist, and then offer solutions for the future. I'm suggesting, and I think very strongly, that we cannot afford to lose the institutional testimony that was in these reports. A lot of work went in, and I really do believe that should be there. However, my concern is are the conclusions, as an example, still relevant? Have there been modifications? Some of this dates back to 2006, not six months ago.
Are they still relevant today? I certainly wouldn't have a clue if they are or if they aren't, and I certainly wouldn't want to sign off on a report if it is not relevant. Now, we're not talking about going back one, two, three, or six months. We're talking about two or two and a half years, when the Auditor General reported on this. I think somehow, some way.... I don't know the vehicle, and I don't want to get into a precedent of opening up, but could we even ask the department? We could say, “There are the conclusions of an interim report. Can you give us an update?”
There's no sense in our making a recommendation if it's already completed. I don't know. I wouldn't have a clue. So somehow and some way.... If it is an addendum letter, I don't know, but I don't want to lose the institutional depth of the report itself, and I certainly as a committee don't want to make a recommendation that is out of whack and not relevant to the circumstance of today.
How do we move around that, Chair?