Typically, in these kinds of situations, when we're auditing a program and matters that come to our attention raise questions about wrongdoing, we will follow the trail as far as we can. We'll gather as much information as we can. We will make a determination at some point in time, once we hit a sufficient amount of evidence of wrongdoing, to turn it over to law enforcement.
Now, historically, that's happened in a number of cases. The sponsorship scandal might have been one of them. I'm not entirely sure, but there were definitely examples in which—for example, with the correctional investigator and his conduct—we turned matters over to the RCMP. There were other files in which we turned over potential fraud.
We are not in the business of determining mens rea. The guilty mind is not our area of expertise. We gather facts. When we feel that there is a risk that there might be criminality, and it's not the level of reasonable doubt and not the level of sufficient grounds to proceed with an investigation, we turn it over to the RCMP. We allow them to determine whether they're going to seek a production order or a warrant. They do their thing.