I did point out that the sponsor travel report has been referred to this committee; it's my understanding. And in that report, which came out in January last year, there are two relatively small but not trivial issues that need to be thought through, and that is the question of what we mean by “not wholly paid”, which has come up a number of times in the sponsor travel thing, and also the question of how we treat travel that is, let's say, sponsored by an NGO but actually paid for from some government subsidy or other, so the actual end payer is really the federal government, but in an indirect way. Do we treat that as something that's paid for by the federal government, in which case it doesn't need to be included, or do we not? That's an open question.
On May 9th, 2006. See this statement in context.