There are two things on this.
The first point, concerning the role of Treasury Board, is that it's first of all a policy function. I think you have been given a sense of the varying risks that each deputy's department faces in terms of fraud. Mr. Shugart's risks are very different from the ones faced by Marie Lemay, if you compare a foreign consulate to procurement. When you're looking at policy, you're doing things that are government-wide.
Personally, I think we have the right policy. The question I have in my own head is, have we done enough to ensure that departments' chief financial officers are aware of all the tools out there to help them in assessing fraud risk? What's great about fraud is that it's not unique to the public sector. There is all sorts of guidance out there already on how to do fraud risk assessment.
We'll wait for the committee's report, but one of the questions for us—we're raising awareness now—is whether there is more we can do to formalize some of the tools and practices that are out there.
The other point I would make, in terms of follow-ups—and Madame Laurendeau touched on it—is that internal audit work in this area is important. In addition to the work the AG has done, over the past four years there have been about eight internal audits that have looked at fraud in one capacity or another—either risk management, conflict of interest, or specific to fraud. Every internal audit department in the Government of Canada does follow-ups on the recommendations, so they know the status. Just as the AG follows up on their recommendations and this committee does as well, internal auditors do the same thing. That's an important mechanism, in terms of tracking any previous recommendations.