Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.
As a first step, we tried to get our hands on the report. The only thing we got at the time, which was some weeks ago when the story broke, was essentially—and I use the words loosely here—an executive summary, which we did get hold of. At that time, we decided to forward this to the OAG.
Now, why is that? The OAG, as we speak, is carrying out an audit of DCC, Defence Construction Canada. We felt that it might be a good idea for them to factor this line of inquiry into their audit. It kind of made sense from where we were. So that's the first step.
The second step was that, I think last week, we received—and I just thumbed through it—the actual report per se. It was not the executive summary, but the report with the details by the consultant, the various bases that have been visited, and the type of activities that are documented in there, and we have sent that to the OAG as well.
The OAG has given us the signal that it may be beyond the scope of their audit for reasons of time. I'm waiting for that answer to be given to me formally in writing. Should that be the case, we will carry out a review within the department, through the oversight branch, in cooperation with National Defence.
Clearly it is our crown, but the crown, as you know, works very closely with DND. Should the OAG formally decide to not look into this, we will take steps to investigate the allegations that have been made in the report, which we now have in our hands.