I’ve read that report. I don’t need to be schooled by the Minister. The facts lay simply before themselves. The Minister’s statement on February 25th , the language is practically identical
to chapters 39, 41, 19, 42 and 80, as oh, things are wonderful, but yet if you read the Auditor General’s report pointing to those sections, it’s similar. It only draws one conclusion of the everyday person: the department doesn’t want to be responsible for these things so they’re downplaying them upfront and then they’re going to use the angle, oh, but don’t worry we’re on the file, so let’s not get too excited.
Can the Minister explain simply why the wording is identical and we’ll deal with that so we can all move forward? Thank you.