It was via a phone call between myself and Mr. Frank Vandenhoven.
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.
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.
1:05 p.m.
Bill Matthews Senior Director, Government Accounting Policy, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
It was via a phone call between myself and Mr. Frank Vandenhoven.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I understand from the Auditor General that there was also a legal opinion. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand? There was a legal opinion at that time?
1:05 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Vandenhoven was given a copy of the legal opinion, yes.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
You said it was below that billion-dollar threshold and that he was dealing with another issue of $500 million. Did he actually read that legal opinion?
1:05 p.m.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We can ask him. I don't know. His note indicates that he reviewed the material supporting the establishment of the $22 million. I don't know if that includes it.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The witness is here. Why don't we bring him up now?
Perhaps I'll ask the witness to come to the table, identify himself, and answer the question so that we can get it on the record.
May 30th, 2006 / 1:05 p.m.
Frank Vandenhoven Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I'm Frank Vandenhoven from the Office of the Auditor General.
In answer to your question, yes, I did see and read the legal opinion.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I focused on the legal opinion from the perspective Mr. St-Jean has referred to--the two areas. I looked at it from the accrual accounting perspective: was this a legitimate liability, an appropriate charge, if you will, to the surplus of the government for that point in time. I did not focus on the issue of whether it should have been charged from appropriation.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So it appears there was no intent. In fact, it was Mr. St-Jean who flagged this and brought it forward.
Would it be possible to table the memo that you mentioned you found in the file, that Mr. Wiersema, back in February of that year, had in fact given a positive response? You mentioned a memo.
1:05 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
If I may, my predecessor didn't give a positive response. My predecessor declined to challenge the legal opinion.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Would it be possible to table that document? Thank you.
Mr. Morgan, you said there are approximately 30 requests for legal opinions per year. Was that correct?
1:05 p.m.
Acting Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management and Analysis Sector, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
No. What I was indicating was that we take at least 30 or 40 calls from departments asking for our interpretation of our policy on payables at year-end. We don't request legal opinions for those, but it does demonstrate that there are questions in departments in terms of how to apply that policy for charging appropriations at year-end.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Baker, you were the final person to sign off. Did the buck stop with you?
1:10 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Yes, it did. I signed an attestation.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
The Auditor General states in her opening remarks, point 13, that there's no record that ministers gave any direction to public servants. And you absolutely, categorically, can verify that?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have five minutes.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I just want to ask Mr. Wiersema some questions. I get the impression of a crisis mentality going on here in February--meetings with Treasury Board, Public Works, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Public Safety, the captain of the centre. It was a pretty high-level thing. Nobody really missed the meetings; there must have been some urgency. I would think cabinet ministers would also have been quite interested in what was going on at those meetings.
I'm not sure why the whole matter should have been urgent, because in July 2003 there was a meeting with Public Works and these people, and they had an agreement in principle. Isn't that right, Mr. Wiersema? To your recollection, there was an agreement in principle in the summer of 2003?
1:10 p.m.
Former Comptroller General of Canada, As an Individual
I believe we may be mixing up two different things. I think the agreement in principle is the agreement with the contractor for the work. Some considerable urgency was associated with the meeting in February 2004.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Former Comptroller General of Canada, As an Individual
Because of the timing of the final supplementary estimates for 2003.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You would think when senior people are making an agreement in principle on fairly significant expenditures, they must be trying to figure out how they're going to account for this at the end of the year.
1:10 p.m.
Former Comptroller General of Canada, As an Individual
As I testified, Mr. Chairman, during my short time as the Comptroller General, this was a relatively straightforward issue for me. I have worked in government for quite a while; I've dealt with complex accounting issues. As I said earlier, this one was clear to me. The work had been performed. The contractor had been asked by government officials to do the work. The contractor was going to be paid. It looked to me like a liability that should be charged to the appropriation committee.