I'm not looking for another hearing, and I don't think anyone here is. You mentioned that the reports are five or six months old, and we understand the process. We have one that's two years and five months old, and one that is almost two years old.
Whether it's through a supplementary, or whatever, I'm fine. I'm not asking for a full hearing. But in fairness to the committee members and where we are, most of these issues happened prior to 2006. So this audit is not about us.
For the committee's benefit, and for the committee to be thorough and move ahead, I'm not looking for a full hearing on it. I wouldn't mind just being able to know where we've gone in the last two and a half years. If there's something we can put into this report that will be either damning or non-damning, that's not my issue; it's that this committee be a lot more fulsome in the information we're going to be signing off on. I think that's only fair to the committee, the Auditor General, and these departments--for the good and the bad.
I'm not very happy about signing something that's two and a half years old without having some updates to know what has actually happened. We're trying to get that evaluation.