Thank you.
With the election, much has changed. These issues dealt with the 40th Parliament, which we're no longer in. I'm a new member of Parliament, so I have to speak from the perspective of a new MP. I was not privy to the decisions leading up to the request for studies and reports. I think that puts me at a disadvantage. Without having had a chance for input as to the need for the reports in the first place...we're here because we have a certain level of expertise. I'm probably on this committee because I'm a CGA. I'm not sure I would have agreed to any of those reports. Things have changed rather significantly.
To me it makes much more sense that this new committee move forward on issues of current concern rather than retroactively looking at studies and reports that were driven by a committee that had a completely different makeup in this particular committee. It makes no sense to me. And this is not precedent setting. I spent three terms on city council in Sault Ste. Marie, and when a new council came in we dealt with new and current issues. We didn't deal with issues of the past. That was the reason you had a new council.
Furthermore, we barely have enough time to address the work currently before this committee. We have the Auditor General's spring and soon-to-be-released fall report. We have a new Auditor General to review. We have the public accounts to study in November. As you have mentioned, there are several delegations who are looking to meet with members of this committee. There's just not the time to be looking at these. We need to be looking forward as a committee of this makeup. I'm opposed to the motion put forward.
Thank you.