Absolutely. Thank you very much, Chair, and I appreciate the concern brought forth by the members opposite.
My intention is not to put words in people's mouths. I'm basically working on the response given by the current government, which was the first issue that I wanted to clarify in my opening remarks with respect to who's response was this. In light of the fact that this meeting took place on November 24 and 25 in Kelowna, we can't change history. We can play around with words, but the essence, and with respect to the comments specifically made by the government in its overall response, clearly indicates that there was consensus-based decision-making displayed at Kelowna. That's what I'm referring to, and those are the objectives I'm referring to.
On a going-forward basis, from the changes that the Auditor General has requested or with respect to the recommendations that have been fulfilled, I want to know how these broad-based decisions that were displayed at Kelowna would impact that department on a going-forward basis. That's where my line of questioning was coming from.
I'll continue along with that because I think it is relevant, going forward, with respect to changes that are recommended by the Auditor General. This Kelowna decision-making process that took place on November 24 and 25 is a very important step, I believe, in addressing some of the concerns I brought forth, and that was my understanding when I was asking Mr. LeBlanc.
So I want again to ask Mr. LeBlanc and the officials from the health department this. On a going-forward basis, the recommendations that have been brought forth by the Auditor General--how would the Kelowna first ministers meeting and the decisions that were made impact some of the recommendations?