I know that this is a tough question, but did you get a sense, or did your investigators get a sense, that they really believed they could let go with the one hand because they had it in hand with the other? Or was there a sense that they let go and there really wasn't a sort of legitimate attempt to replace it? It was impressive, what they had put in place, and it broke my heart to read that they had dissolved it.
I quote further from page 12, section 1.27 of your report.:
However, since the Department’s adoption of its integrated model in 2004, GBA training is no longer provided. Employees who joined the Department after 2004 may not have the knowledge or support to perform GBA. The Department has not appointed a GBA champion or monitored if employees are applying the policy consistently.
It looked like the dissolution of that unit meant the beginning of the end of this actually happening in a meaningful way in the department that was out in the lead.
Hopefully colleagues will agree that we can bring that in.
The second part of this one is the whole issue of your ability to get material, and we talked about this when we had the in camera initial presentation, when you tabled it earlier this week. We know that we've adjusted your mandate in the past to avoid these kinds of things, and I think a lot of us believed, okay, the final hurdle has been overcome. Yet again we're hearing that you're not able to get the information.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're still not trying to see documents that governments of all political stripes don't want you to see--private cabinet documents--which is fair ball under our system. That's cool. But you do believe there is a way of providing a template, a form, that would allow you to see the analysis that's been done and to extrapolate from that without damaging confidentiality. That would allow you to analyze and determine whether this analysis is taking place.
Is that correct?