I'm not arguing, but I think we have to agree on what we're doing.
You can't update an audit that was done three years ago with recent information. There's an historical context that is the premise of all that. To go back three years later.... Well, of course the entire world has changed in three years. They haven't responded to any of the recommendations because they haven't even gotten them yet.
It's completely revisionist. We have to take the document as it was. It's a snapshot in time based on a period of three years ago. Lots has changed since then. We'll end up rewriting the entire report.
This report has to stand. It's based on an audit. It's based on findings of the Office of the Auditor General two and a half to three years ago. Those were the findings. Those were the recommendations at the time. Anything new will have to be dealt with in a new audit.