As the public accounts committee, we're concerned that although their pension plan wasn't at risk—and I'm glad of that—certainly the taxpayers' money was at risk through all of this.
On page 13 of the Auditor General's original report there is an exhibit 9.1, and there are four different circumstances. One of them is on the casual staff who were hired and the nepotism that was involved. But there is case after case of work that was done for very little value. One of my colleagues said that was exactly what began the whole sponsorship scandal. Money was hidden or transferred through invoices for work of very little value.
Did you find, Chief, any evidence in these cases where there was little value for work for which money was paid?