Mr. Chen brought up the Gartner report. It's surprising that it has taken people so long—and for the press to report on it—because the Gartner report is very, very different from the S.i. Systems one, which was “Oh yeah, go ahead”. Gartner was pretty damning. You read Gartner and it's like there's no way we should have gone forward.
We heard testimony from Minister Foote, when she was around, and from Ms. Lemay, but we never saw Gartner. It was not presented to us. It's clear why Treasury Board wouldn't have given us such a damning report. One of the things that Gartner very clearly states was that training was not done, would not be done in time even if they were to start it, and that it would have consequences, such as pay problems. There we have it, laid out right in front of us.
PSPC says, “Oh, we never got Gartner.” Why would we have not handed it over to PSPC if what you're saying is that everyone was talking together and meeting together? We had the meeting in committee that Mr. Deltell was mentioning in terms of your comment that if it's not “99%” ready, you won't go ahead. You had the Gartner report already saying that, but now we have PSPC saying that they never received the Gartner report.
Can you tell us why we wouldn't have passed that on?