Evidence of meeting #5 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accounting.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
So who is personally responsible for that decision, for recording it as unrecorded liability? Would that be you, Mr. Baker?
12:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
As the head of the centre, I make an attestation, along with the chief financial officer, to ensure that we're accurately reporting to Parliament. We certainly had the strong view that we were, in light of the feedback and discussions that were held.
I should point out again that at no point subsequent to that meeting that took place was I or my chief financial officer advised by anyone that this conclusion was not the right way forward with respect to reporting.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Who authorized the seeking of a legal opinion from Public Safety? Who at Public Safety authorized that?
12:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
The Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada had requested it from the Department of Justice.
12:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Her name is Margaret Bloodworth. She's the former Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay, and was it that legal opinion for the minister that you report to that ultimately persuaded you to change your opinion on advising supplementary estimates?
12:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
It wasn't just the legal opinion. We had an accounting opinion, we had a legal opinion, and there were many discussions.
From our perspective, what mattered was that there appeared to be a consensus emerging with all the parties at the table that the proper way forward was not to charge it to the appropriation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
That's interesting, Mr. Baker, because Treasury Board and the CFC commissioner at one point were united in recommending the pursuit of supplementary estimates, according to the Auditor General's report, and yet seven weeks later that evaporated.
Mr. St-Jean, you mentioned the perils of ignoring legal opinion. What perils were you concerned about if you were to ignore that legal opinion and advise that it should be recorded or should pursue supplementary estimates? Losing your job perhaps?
12:55 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Well, the issue here is that if I'm not following the law and doing accounting as provided by the Financial Administration Act, it would be breaking the law. So you can make your own conclusions in terms of what it means. It's not something I would do.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Very good, sir.
I'm also concerned that by focusing on the trees we're going to miss the forest a little bit. I want to come back to the decision on supplementary estimates.
Of the expenditures for the Firearms Centre between 1995-96 and 2002-03, 70%, or a total of $525 million, was sought by supplementary estimates. Why look for a legal opinion at this point when there's an established practice? There had been no problem about seeking supplementary estimates prior to that, so why the change?
12:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
First of all, I think you're correct on the years in question. Certainly for the years 2003-04 and beyond, when I was in charge of the Firearms Centre, we did not seek supplementary estimates, because we certainly did not plan to ever exceed our budget in any respect.
But the core of your question is absolutely right. It's a duty of the deputy head of an agency, if it looks like we're not going to have sufficient funds in the appropriation, to pursue with the minister a supplementary estimate. We were prepared to do so, had we concluded that one was necessary.
I come back to your earlier observation. It's correct that at a point in time in early January, I felt, based on the advice I had received from accounting specialists, including the Comptroller General's office, that a supplementary estimate was required, but that pre-dated the involvement of the Department of Justice and many others in reviewing what was the actual extent of the debt or liability.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Wiersema, is he correct on the Comptroller General's accounting advice to that department? Is that the correct assessment?
12:55 p.m.
Former Comptroller General of Canada, As an Individual
I can only speak for myself as the Comptroller General. As I said in my opening statement, my accounting advice was consistent throughout my entire involvement with this file, that these were liabilities and should be recorded by the Firearms Centre and charged against the appropriation.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.
Mr. Morgan wanted to add something to that. Then we're going to go to Mr. Comartin.
12:55 p.m.
Acting Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management and Analysis Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
I believe at the time the facts were very uncertain. We had verbal recollections from the centre as to the nature of the arrangement, but we had a lack of clarity in the details. So there was some advice provided by the OCG that the costs should be accrued and charged in appropriations. That was in the middle of January.
That assumed certain things, and one of those things was that this would proceed to Treasury Board for a formal contract amendment. In other words, had the contract been amended, it would have represented a legitimate and legal charge on the appropriation. That was the working assumption at that point.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Morgan.
We're now going to go back to Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Comartin, you have five minutes.
1 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wiersema, we've had a fair amount of criticism from the Auditor General about the lack of recording of minutes of those meetings. Did you ever raise the issue at any of the meetings that you wanted recorded minutes?
1 p.m.
Former Comptroller General of Canada, As an Individual
No, I didn't. At the mid-February meeting, Mr. Chairman, no, I did not raise it. In hindsight, I regret not doing so.
1 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
As do we all.
Mr. St-Jean, I'm not quite clear when the Comptroller General made the decision to reverse the one that was made in 2004 and agree with the Auditor General that the booking of these liabilities and debt had been done inappropriately. When was that decision made?
1 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
The report of the Auditor General on the firearms, a special chapter, was done in November and December and in January 2006, just recently—
1 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
March. Okay. It was in the last two or three months, in March 2006. The matters were reviewed at that time with the Auditor General. A conclusion was made that there's absolutely no disagreement with the Office of the Auditor General on the error of 2002-03. This is a technical error.
In 2003-04, there was a decision made not to go for a supplementary estimate and not to report it as an expense against the appropriation. But the Auditor General made the point, when we had—
1 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
There's one very important point, sir, and it deals with obtaining an unqualified audit opinion on the public accounts of the Government of Canada.
The Auditor General made the statement that had she known about this transaction at the time, it would have given rise to a qualification on the audited financial statements of the Government of Canada.
As a public servant—