No, I did not, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in my testimony last week, for me the matter was relatively straightforward. The contractor had been asked to perform work by senior government officials. The contractor was going to be paid. It was very clear to me that there was a liability. In my experience in government, that liability should be charged against the appropriation.
I would point out as well that if the government were to accept the distinction made in Mr. Pigeon's opinion between liability and debt, I would have expected it to result in changes to the Treasury Board's PAYE policy, the instructions to government departments on how to record those liabilities at year-end. This issue took place in 2004. Mr. Pigeon's opinion is dated 2004. We're now well into 2006, and to the best of my knowledge, there have been no changes to the government's PAYE policy to give effect to the distinction Mr. Pigeon was making.