mation — what's the expectation of the auditor general of a further reporting, which he references in his com- ments here? What's the thinking on what the context of that might be? is it a review of what's gone on before? is it something dierent?
i'm just trying to get a sense of what the content or context of that report might look like. has a decision been made about that?
J. Doyle: ank you for the question. first of all, no, no decision has been made, because the form of any re- port, if there will be one, will depend very much on what is made available.
if i look at the information that has been made avail- able and it seems to me that citizens can be considered well informed in regard to the costs and consequences of the olympics and the Paralympics, then there is no need for further work. if they have not been informed or it is quite hard to draw all that information together, i may or may not feel that there's a need to actually draw those streams of information together and put them into one document.
now, i can't make that assessment until a number of these reports have been published and are made avail- able and interested observers have had a chance to go through them themselves.
i'd said earlier on that it might be mid-december. i was corrected by my colleague, who told me that the re- port wouldn't be ready until mid-december. erefore, it probably won't be until early in the new year that i'll be able to form a view as to whether or not any further work or any additional reporting will be necessary.
e object of the exercise…. i'll just quote from here,
and where i'm coming from. it's straight out of the letter, and it's still valid. "one recommendation: that govern- ment expand its denition of games-related costs to include all items that are reasonably attributable to host- ing the 2010 olympic and Paralympic Winter games and report publicly on those costs and the risks asso- ciated with them." at was before, but also aer, the event.
really got to be clear on this. it's expanding its def- inition to the denition that a reasonable citizen would consider it is — not some kind of narrow process which says: "is comes out of this particular bucket." and i think that's what citizens expect.
now, it's actually quite dicult to get all that informa- tion together, but there's been plenty of energy and eort from dierent layers of government and from dierent individual organizations to actually bring information together and try to put them into one particular place. at the end of the day, i may consider that that's more than adequate and that no further work is required. But if i don't, then i shall be doing an additional piece of work to actually bring that information together. and
W, n ,
that would be the structure and form of the report, if any, that would ow.
b. Ralston (Chair): anks very much. i don't see any further questions. oh, mr. doyle's got his hand up yet again.
J. Doyle: Sorry, chair. i was just waiting till the end. in the presentation made by the government in re- gard to the olympics, it was suggested that i'd misled the Pac in that i had not informed you of certain aspects of the situation. one of the things that was mentioned was that i didn't mention that a dra report or a report had been produced and handed over to government. i think if you read Hansard, you'll nd that i did. i did mention that a dra report was handed over.
e other thing that was confusing about the presen-
tation was that the three- to four-pager that i referred to was how we would report into the future, not how we reported in the past. again, i think if you read Hansard, you will nd that it's quite clear in the way that i ex- pressed myself, because i usually read from a text, so i make sure that i know exactly what it is i'm going to say and how i'm going to say it.
i wanted to put it on record that i have not misled the committee, and i wouldn't wish you to think that i had.
b. Ralston (Chair): okay. i really don't want to have a shooting match here.
D. Foster: no. Just my nal closing comment, be- cause i think it's a comment that the minister of finance would want to make sure was heard.
b. Ralston (Chair): and you are instructed by the minister of finance to make these comments here today?
D. Foster: i have already had discussions with the minister. i just need to make a fact point.
on an evening just prior to the Queen's Printer go- ing into production, this ministry received a report. it was some 60 pages. We were invited for comments. We provided those comments. We believed that was going to publication. it didn't happen. at's the point i'm try- ing to clarify. at's a relevant piece here, because there was a lot more information in the report than what has been tabled.
e auditor is free to say, "i have control of issuing my
own reports," and he's right. all i'm suggesting is that the report that the province thought he was going to pro- duce and release publicly isn't what was released. at's the only point i'm making — my closing comments.
Ralston (Chair): Well, thank you very much.
ank you both.