Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to deal with the single issue of the extent to which I went along with whatever was proposed here.
As I said in my opening statement, my position on this was clear throughout. I believe my position on this was the reason that mid-February meeting was called. I received a call from my office late one afternoon saying there was this meeting being convened that evening and that the Deputy Minister of Public Safety had insisted I be in attendance. So I did attend that meeting.
I did not change my view in that meeting, but based on discussions in that meeting it became very clear to me that we weren't having an accounting conversation, we were having a conversation about the political implications of seeking supplementary estimates. The comment was made in the meeting that we cannot, or I cannot, recommend supplementary estimates, because it will have implications for the estimates. Given all of that, it was not an accounting conversation, it was a different conversation, and I didn't think it was necessary to restate my view.
A few days subsequent to that meeting, Mr. Pigeon formally sent the legal opinion to me, the legal opinion that will eventually be shared with you. I was not privy to that legal opinion. My name wasn't indicated in that legal opinion up until that point. I received that legal opinion a couple of days after the meeting that we've much referred to today, and it was of concern to me.
I was going to draft a memo back to Mr. Pigeon indicating that I received his opinion, it was interesting, but it still had not changed my view on the accounting for that matter. I circulated that draft memo to selected individuals within the secretariat for their comments before I sent it. I was strongly advised not to send it, because decisions had been taken and because I would be viewed as exercising or demonstrating sour grapes on the matter. At that point, I had resigned and I was advised not to send the memo, on the basis that it would be viewed as sour grapes on my part. Madam Cartwright was one of the people who saw that draft memo.
Secondly, during the course of the finalization of this audit, as I understand it, on two separate occasions government officials, in letters to the Auditor General's office, referred to my participation in these meetings. Both of those letters were subsequently retracted. In both letters, initially, the first drafts referred to my participation in the meeting, but the final version of both letters removes those references. That, to me, is an indication of the degree of conviction that the government had as to the extent to which I concurred with the ultimate decisions that were taken.
Thank you for the opportunity for these closing remarks.