In the act it is very clear that any audit work undertaken would be at the discretion of the Auditor General. So there is no direction from government as to the audits that would be conducted. That is absolutely essential, because one of the key tenets of an Auditor General to be able to do the work is the independence of the Auditor General. So the Auditor General has to be able to determine what work would be done.
In the case of the expanded mandate--it is proposed in the Accountability Act, as we mention in my opening statement--we really believe it is the responsibility of government departments to ensure that they have the systems and practices in place to be able to show that funds that are given by grants and contributions, or through loans, are used for the purposes intended and meet the terms and conditions of those funding agreements. Our job, essentially, fundamentally, is to ensure that those systems and practices are in place and that they are working appropriately. This is the kind of work we do on a regular basis.
There could be very unusual circumstances--and we will have to try to determine what they would be--in which an Auditor General would feel it appropriate to actually audit a recipient. But as we indicate, we believe that would be very rare and unusual. We do not believe we will ever systematically audit grant contribution recipients.