Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes, although it is great to hire north, in order to get independence, you need to go outside the community and outside the milieu to get objectivity. The bottom line here is, as I see it, the department has devised the terms of reference. The department has appointed an investigator with whom it has had a working relationship with in the past and it just doesn't look like an independent review to me. It looks more like an internal investigation, albeit not by a departmental staff person.
I want to say as well that I'm completely puzzled by the Minister raising the matters of confidence and confidentiality in response to my question. I think I've been asking questions of principle about the process. I have no interest whatsoever in raising matters about the details of what went on in the home or any of the identities of the children involved. Forgive me for saying I thought they were adolescents. I don't think that's a great breach of confidence, if I did mention that.
What I was referring to when I used the word confidence, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the Minister didn't quite understand me, was I wanted to know if the contractor has confidence in the investigator. I don't expect the contractor would have the courage to go and discuss this issue with the Minister, with it being under investigation. I'm not surprised the contractor hasn't approached the Minister.
Perhaps her deputy and officials can indicate whether or not the contractor has been approached or has indicated a willingness to cooperate with this investigator and this investigation. My information is that the answer is no. So, it isn't going to work. I would respectfully suggest that, if that's the case and if there's a true desire to hear both sides of the equation, then the department should go back to the drawing board, find someone in whom both parties have confidence and get on with it, in a way that's going to have a credible result and in a way in which the participants are going to participate and buy into. Thank you.