I'm not opposed to the motion with respect to its going to the Auditor General, but I want to ensure something, and I'm not sure we put it in the motion.
When she was here, she made it very clear that because of her mandate, normally the scope of her analysis is to analyze projects from the point of view of whether they met the objectives the government set for them and whether moneys were spent and administration was accurate or not. Her mandate doesn't give her the ability to look at a broader policy context. Therefore, the analysis she could give us would be limited by virtue of that fact.
What I want to acknowledge somehow here is that the outcome she will come out with--not because she doesn't have the expertise, necessarily, but because of her mandate--would be limiting to a degree. What I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't have the scope that we'd want to see.