Thank you, Mr. Christopherson, for a little bit of context. You're absolutely right; this is where we are.
Since we're doing some introspection here, I had my own company for 26 years, a small business. There were times when there were great efficiencies that I could achieve in my operations by reducing my costs, so I appreciate, Mr. Forster, your saying that and putting it in a better context.
I think this goes right to the nub of what this committee is all about. What we want are the appropriate resources in place at the most efficient cost possible to represent the people who elected us to this position to sit here and scrutinize, just as the Auditor General's role is to do that as the lead-in for us to be able to interpret the data he's giving us.
I don't know exactly where I'm heading here on a question, but the reality is that this is what the objective should be here. Take the politics out of it, if we can. It's not always possible to do that, unfortunately, but when it starts to get tainted with, “This year we didn't have a problem” and “That year we did because of these things”, and we start to get that mixed into what the discussion has turned out to be today.... It is, I think, concerning to all committee members that the comment was made that it was a bad decision.
It may not have been that bad of a decision, sir, at the time. It may have been the logical thing to do. You haven't reopened those offices, right? The resources needed to be replenished in a different way in order to be more cost effective. I will just say that.
I'm really not leading to a question, just giving context or adding a bit more from my perspective on where I was headed. There are appropriate times, as you have said, to make cuts for more efficiency, and there are times to replenish and to build back up. Any comments you might have in order to add a little more to it, Mr. Forster, I would appreciate.