Four options are being suggested here. It's a tiny bit confusing. Due to the nature of whatever computer programs are being used, they're given paragraph numbers 38, 39, 40, and 41. But in practice, any of them, I assume, would be 38.
Option A is the one that was pre-written for the committee by Mr. McGuinty, I think--the coalition. It comes to a series of conclusions that simply do not match up with the evidence.
Options B, C, and D are worth looking at as alternatives. They are what is typically produced by the analysts in preparation for such a report.
Looking down, the first one.... You'll see there's a gradual change as you go through these things. The first one is:
The matter referred to this committee on March 9, 2011, has been ongoing for over four months. The committee finds discouraging the lengths to which Parliament has been forced to go in order to receive specific documents....
And so on. You can read through that.
Option C:
To comply with the Speaker's ruling on March 9, 2011, the government asked officials in charge of the relevant portfolios to put before the committee and Parliament as much cost information in respect of the [finance committee] motions and the motion adopted by the House on February 17, 2011 as reasonably possible. Following the tabling of--