Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.
Just before we go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I have a question, Ms. Cochrane. This has always bothered me in this particular case. I appreciate that you may not be the right person to address the question, but you're the only one here now who was in government.
This situation arose as a sidebar to the auditor's report, and it identified the $4.6 million. That was in May 2006, long after the events transpired, long after you left the Department of Public Works. But the sidebar referred to this figure. Now we are having testimony from Public Works officials, Mr. Marshall, and many others, including you, that in hindsight the $4.6 million isn't correct because it doesn't take into account events that occurred after April 2003. My question—and again it may be speculative—is Public Works would have got this report before it was tabled in Parliament, and they would have reviewed it, I hope. Is there any reason why they wouldn't have notified the auditor with a correction disputing the figure she was using? Because they are disputing it before this committee. Do you have any reason to advance on that?