Ms. Fraser, I want to go back to point eight of your opening remarks.
Under section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, before authorizing payments, public servants have an obligation to certify that the work has been performed, the goods supplied, or the service rendered as specified in the contract. They need a basis for making this certification.
Now, I continue to have a personal challenge when I look at your letter dated April 26 in which your 53 samples are listed. I know the Pan Am Games, the Molson Indy, the Montreal Canadiens Hockey Club, the Rimouski minor hockey tournament, or for that matter the Nagano Olympic Winter Games, and I know that those events had post-mortem analysis. If I were to go through all of these events and call these people.... As you've said, in many cases the records weren't there. Why they weren't there, we do not know.
Let's take a specific example, the Molson Indy. We now have all their post-mortems. I have them in my office, and I've checked with a couple of others. If we were to get all of these post-mortems to show that there was value for money--and I'm not saying in all 53, but even if it were 49 of 53--would it be appropriate for you, as the Auditor General, to respond to that evidence once it's produced?
I ask this question because two weeks ago on Cross Country Checkup the former Auditor General, Kenneth Dye, said to all Canadians that if subsequent information were found and brought to the attention of the auditor, the audit team, and could be verified, then it was his opinion that the Auditor General should then report to Parliament the results of that experience. What would your thoughts be on that?