Public Accounts Committee on June 8th, 2006

[John Wiersema]

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.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And the amount was determined or agreed by the two parties?

[John Wiersema]

There was some discussion around the amount; there was some uncertainty around the amount. My view was that the best estimate of the government's liability for the amount to be paid should have been recorded and charged against the appropriation.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay, because there was an agreement between the two parties?

[John Wiersema]

Because the work had been done and the contractor would be paid.

When I asked the question, Mr. Chairman, what would happen in the event the government somehow refused to make this payment, or if Treasury Board approval were not sought and the matter became litigious, I was advised that the government would lose and would have to pay the amounts in question.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You said the work had been performed, the goods had been received, the services had been rendered. There was no dispute, the government intended to pay, so there was no reason. It's a fairly simple, cut and dried thing. Why would you—

[John Wiersema]

I have dealt with far more complex accounting issues, Mr. Chairman.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Now, Mr. Pigeon says he spoke to you, Mr. Wiersema, and clearly Mr. Pigeon knew your opinion, I presume?

[John Wiersema]

I believe he did, Mr. Chairman.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay.

Madam Bloodworth and Mr. Judd, we're talking about $23 million.

Mr. Judd, especially, you dealt as a central manager of the Government of Canada with $200 billion, give or take....

Why did $23 million, Ms. Bloodworth or Mr. Judd, become such a big deal?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Mr. Chair, there has never been any issue related to the Firearms Centre that I'm aware of in the last 10 years that has not been controversial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Judd, do you have anything to add to that?

[Jim Judd]

The issue was to whether or not there should be a bucking in supplementary estimates in this instance. But as Madam Bloodworth said, the Firearms Centre did tend to attract attention more generally.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Really?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

I have a few questions.

It's not clear to me, Mr. Judd, but were you at any of these meetings that we're talking about?

[Jim Judd]

Not that I'm aware of, no.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I don't believe he was at any meeting that I chaired. It was Ms. Cartwright who was there and Mr. Wiersema, and their staff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Bloodworth, going back to these meetings, you went around the table. From your recollection, were there people saying that it should be appropriate this year? Were certain groups saying no? Give us the gist of what the discussions were.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

First, Mr. Chairman, I would say I was coming in at the tail end of this issue, if you like, and I certainly knew there had been issues and people held views on both sides of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Did you know Mr. Wiersema's view at that time?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I did not know his view personally. I'm not surprised to hear what it was because I knew there was...and I assume some of that was...although I believe the issue was first identified within the Firearms Centre and their financial people. I certainly was not surprised there was an issue, and indeed my goal in this--the reason to hold the meeting--was to make sure we had canvassed whatever options there were. I never assumed that a legal opinion on its own would be the only issue. There might well be other issues, and therefore I wanted to make sure, before any final decisions were taken, that there was an opportunity for those issues to be considered by the senior people around the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Can you clarify for me as to why...? I'm looking for a pecking order as to who would have the last say. The buck would stop at someone's desk, to say this was going to be appropriated for and we're going to seek supplementary estimates, or it's going to be treated in some other manner. It would appear that the buck stopped at Mr. Baker's desk. He was at the deputy minister level. You were at the deputy minister level. How come you were involved in the pile? I guess that's my question.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

It has to do with the fact that it's a portfolio. With respect to Public Safety--now it's Public Safety, but it was the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio--there is a minister responsible for it, but there are at least six major organizations. Overall, it's 52,000 people and an over $5 billion budget, which is the largest civilian budget in government, but it's spread among a number of different agencies. There is a department, which is a relatively small organization within the portfolio, and one of their main jobs--certainly one of my main jobs as deputy minister at the time--was to be the senior public service adviser to the minister about all complex issues in the portfolio.

Mr. Baker is quite right. In the end, if Mr. Baker had concluded that he had to seek supplementary estimates, that was his decision. Basically, my role was to ask: have all the issues been considered?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You weren't Mr. Baker's senior. You had no supervisory function over him.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

No. Mr. Baker reports directly to the minister, or did at the time.