First of all, I certainly categorically deny that I or anyone else I was involved with had any intention of misleading Parliament. Indeed, if that was the case, it would be hard to understand why it would be in the performance report, which it was.
I only became involved quite late in this issue, because Mr. Baker, as he explained when he was here, had flagged that there was a possibility that supplementary estimates would be required for the Firearms Centre. I was at the time the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The deputy minister of that department and that portfolio, which is a very large and complex one, is the senior public service adviser to the minister.
My reason for contacting Mr. Baker first and then the Deputy Minister of Justice for an opinion, was that it became apparent to me that people were using the words “debt” and “liability” interchangeably, and I knew they were not the same, and that seemed to have some significance. So at that stage I was just in the process of asking questions to see whether all options had been canvassed.