We've had an interesting experience with the two reports on the firearms issue here this fall. I'd like to direct some questions in that context to clarify it.
We had the unusual situation where the deputy minister of a department, along with other officials, decided to reject the directions and the legal opinion of the Acting Comptroller General. She got her own legal opinion and pursued her own course of action.
In the final analysis they must have checked with Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay of Enron to come up with something that was reported in public accounts as a recorded unrecorded liability. I'm not an accountant, but boy, it seemed awfully creative to me. I think this whole episode was bizarre, to say the least. It wasn't a proud day. Parliament was left in the dark about the whole episode, and this probably violated the Constitution of Canada and the Public Administration Act.
Our committee has recommended that in the future, if there are any disputes between a deputy minister and the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General's judgment is conclusive and final on the matter. They are the referee. They blow the whistle and call the shots, and the deputy minister takes their directions from that.
What is your reaction to that recommendation, sir?