Thank you, Madam Chair.
We know the Privacy Commissioner in fact was never called in on this matter. The Ethics Commissioner, now we are learning, did not even talk to any of the key individuals involved with this affair. And thirdly, the reason the matter was referred by the public accounts committee to this committee was because this is the appropriate committee to deal with it.
What we have also learned from Mr. Moore is an agreement that this was in fact a political decision. It was political interference. We're left with one of two conclusions from that. The first one is Mr. Baird's explanation that it was a boondoggle. But this is a project that received a national award for procurement. It was approved by seven federal departments under the current government. It was approved by the Treasury Board president himself and by Treasury Board. It was approved by the provincial government. So we can accept that conclusion, which is very hard to believe, given all of that, or that Mr. Baird wanted to interfere in a municipal election.
Those are the questions I'm asking. I ask them here. I ask them outside the House. I ask them in committee and I ask them outside committee, because they are important questions.
Mr. Kirkpatrick, on December 6, 2006, there was a vote by Ottawa's newly elected council that affirmed its support for the federal contribution agreement for the LRT contract to go forward. I'm just wondering if you can take us through some of the details surrounding this decision. You confirmed that it was Treasury Board's decision not to sign the contribution agreement made by the December 14, 2006 deadline, which led the city to terminate its contact with Siemens-PCL/Dufferin.