I would like to finish my answer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Connor states that in his report very clearly. I and my senior officers became aware of the errors and mislabelling at the conclusion of Justice O'Connor's report. It is only Justice O'Connor who takes all of these various elements of the mistakes and the mislabelling and brings them together, as an auditor, to examine these, brings them together and comes to this conclusion. That's the first time it was all brought together, and in his report he states very clearly that no senior officer was aware of that.
In my testimony on September 28, I clearly inferred that some of the knowledge I got when I read the report. I implied that I may have had it in 2002. That was a mistake on my part, and that's why I wanted to come back here to correct the record. But that is very clear, and it's important for the committee to understand that.
No senior officer was aware of it, and all of us became aware after the report was published by Justice O'Connor.
With respect to the second question that Mr. Holland raised, I will go to the point of my discussions with the minister relative to the so-called muzzling, as you called it the last time I appeared, Mr. Holland.
Mr. Chairman, the report was issued on September 18. I was overseas. I was in Brazil at the Interpol conference. That was on the Monday that the report was issued. I came back late Wednesday afternoon. I went to my office, I changed, and I went and met with Minister Day.
We had a discussion about the report. He asked me if I had read the report. I told him I had just gotten the report and I was in the process of trying to read it. I had not slept because I had flown all night. He said, “You should get some sleep.” That's what I did.
I read the report, and then the next day, the next morning, I was in my office and I got the first indication that this committee might be meeting. So I called the minister's office and I set up a meeting. At the same time, that day I wrote a letter to the minister indicating my desire to appear before the committee and to make a public response to the report.
We met the next day, Mr. Chairman, and we–I'm sorry, not the next–on Thursday. That was when I wrote the letter, and I had the discussion and heard that the committee might be meeting.
On Friday I met with the minister. The minister and I discussed the report and we discussed the possibility of the meeting. By Friday afternoon we had indications that the committee would be meeting on Tuesday. We both agreed that would be the ideal time and place to have my first appearance.
That's exactly what happened. That's what transpired between the minister and me. At no time, Mr. Chairman, was I ever directed, was I ever given any instructions, was I ever sent any indication that I was not to talk about it. We understood that this committee was to meet as soon as possible and we agreed that this was the proper place to explain what happened.