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.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Well, Borys, I take it back.
I'd still like to get my question in with Mr. Baker. Let's not get sidetracked on this point.
If you were to brief your minister—it was Minister McLellan in 2004—on this matter and discuss the whole idea of bringing it back as a supplementary estimate, I'd assume that would be the case. I mean, who's running this place? Is it the people we elect to run our country or is it department heads?
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Like any deputy head, if I concluded there wouldn't be sufficient money in the budget to get through the year, I would have a duty to take the necessary steps to advise the minister, as well as consult with the Treasury Board on the proper next steps. As indicated in the Auditor General's report, that was done.
There's a very important distinction here. When we first raised this issue, it was based on our basic understanding of this from an accounting perspective, which naturally was the advice that my chief financial officer, who is also a chartered accountant, was giving us. This then triggered many meetings, as people have pointed out.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Well, I've heard the answer, but the question was really this. Did the minister make it clear to you at the time that we were not going back for supplementary estimates on this matter?
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
As reported in the Auditor General's report, the minister was—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
No. In your conversation with the minister, I'm asking whether it was made clear to you that we were not bringing this thing back to Parliament under supplementary estimates.
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Never. And my duty is under the Financial Administration Act.
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Because, sir, once the analysis on what we thought was an additional charge to the appropriation was complete, the conclusion was—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
But you briefed her before you got the legal opinion. In the first part of February 2004 you had a meeting where you briefed the minister. It's in the report. There was no legal opinion at that time, and you said, “There are only two ways: blow the vote or go back to Parliament for supplementary estimates.”
In that early February meeting, I'm assuming the matter of going back to supplementary estimates was discussed with the minister and it was made clear to you that it was off the radar screen.
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Absolutely not.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We're going to let Mr. Baker conclude his answer to the question and then we're going to move on to Ms. Ratansi.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, I didn't either, so I'm going to ask him to repeat it, without interruption.
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
I was never directed to avoid supplementary estimates. My duty was to present the options to the minister.
That in turn triggered more detailed examination by officials at the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Comptroller General, and others, which in turn raised questions about the amount of liability or debt and triggered requests from the Department of Justice for a legal opinion. Then, based upon the reflections on that legal opinion and everything else, it was determined that in fact this was not something that had to be charged to the appropriation. Therefore, the issue of supplementary estimates versus blowing the vote became moot; there was no longer a pressure on—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Fitzpatrick, we're agreed that Mr. Baker will conclude his answer; then we're going to move on to Ms. Ratansi.
Are you finished, Mr. Baker?
12:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre, As an Individual
Yes, I am. We discussed it.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
Ms. Ratansi, we're now starting the second round of five minutes.
May 30th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you. I'd like to make a comment first.
I think we should take things into perspective. The Auditor General had stated that parliamentarians do not pay much attention to estimates and that it is important for us to pay attention to estimates. I can see that there is a $21.8 million issue, and I'll come to it in a minute. But going forward I have not seen any estimates for the extension of the Afghan mission; as a parliamentarian, I have no idea of the roles and responsibilities, the human resource costs, the cost of equipment. I think, therefore, people here should understand that it is our responsibility to make government accountable. We are parliamentarians and we cannot willy-nilly allow the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants, and that's the context in which I'm going to put it.
My question is to Monsieur St-Jean. Who wrote the Financial Administration Act? I know you've only been here two years, but does anybody know who wrote the act? It could have been lawyers and accountants. In a business world, accountants seek opinions. I understand from Mr. Morgan that because this involves legislative issues, you had to seek a legal opinion.
Mr. St-Jean, you have been very thoughtful in projecting what your predecessor, or whoever sought the opinions, tried to do. You mentioned that a liability has to be recorded after Treasury Board approves it. Am I putting words in your mouth? Is that the right statement?
12:35 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
A liability must be recorded in the books of the Government of Canada—not necessarily against an appropriation—when there is the economic substance to say directly that there is such an obligation that will mature and that the government will eventually become liable for. It goes in the books of the Government of Canada—the financial statements, not the appropriation.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
You talked about two worlds. You said you live in the accounting world and the parliamentary world. Parliament looks at the FAA as its guide. Regarding the treatment of the $21.8 million, was it put into the financial statements of the government? If I were a layperson and was looking at the financial statements of the government, would I have seen that amount? Would it have appeared as a debt, a liability, or as anything? Would the balance sheet have shown me that this amount was there?
12:35 p.m.
Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
As the Auditor General has mentioned, this is a very small amount compared with the overall liability recorded in the balance sheet, so you would not see it as a single line on the balance sheet per se.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
No, but I'm not going line by line. I'm looking at the bottom line figure. If the government were to spend $200 billion, would that $21.8 million be part of that accrued liability shown in the balance sheet as its liabilities? Would it be there?
