I think I echo what Ms. Crombie has said, because if we look at it, committees change in every Parliament. In the changing nature of a committee, if we go down this route with new members, because they're not familiar with it and because a report was in the past Parliament, where do we stop? Where do we start and where do we stop?
While I appreciate there is progress being made, I am trying to figure out how we balance. I am willing to listen to how you want it balanced, but an audit, as has been pointed out, is an historical picture. The audit is done after the fact. After the fact, in 2007, when the audit was done, these were the facts. If you wish to put in a supplementary report to say what progress was made since then, I'll have to hear the pros and cons, and whether we would set a precedent, and how it might lead to other committees following this. I don't want to open a Pandora's box if we don't have to, unless it is absolutely critical--unless you found the report to be too damning. I didn't.