It was in 2010. We're going back two years prior to that.
I have to tell you, it seems reasonable to me. To go back, what amounts to just shy of five years, that takes us two years before the change. That would give us some sense of any pattern of any issues, if there were any, or whether things were going along fine. We can also see how it's been the last two or three years. Five is a usual catchment number. This is pretty close to five years. For what it's worth, it seems to me that going back five years is asking a fair bit of an organization, but that's not beyond the pale. It meets our needs. I don't see it as being overly political, given the government has been in power since 2006.
My inclination is to stay with what we've requested and that we ask for it back to 2008, any correspondence between the foundation and the ministry or the minister vis-à-vis appointments to the board. Any of that correspondence that exists, we'd like to see a copy of it. Mr. Friedman has agreed. He's going to try to meet our initial deadline of January 15, 2013.
Mr. Friedman, if for some reason you can't, you're going to correspond with our clerk, advise her that you're having difficulties, what those difficulties are, and how much of an extension you might be seeking. That's what we're looking for from you by the 15th. So far, Mr. Friedman feels that's a reasonable request in terms of his ability to respond to our request within that timeframe.
Colleagues, I'm inclined to let that stand. If we have that information, it's timely, and the analysts will have it in time to incorporate it into their report. Then we'll be ready to go sometime in the new year when the draft is in front of us.
That's how I see where we are right now. Are we all okay with that instruction and that understanding going forward?
