The timing of all this stuff is very interesting.
One question I have right off the bat is for Mr. Baker. I notice that right off the bat you said there were only two options: you could ask for supplemental estimates or blow the vote—neither of which was a very good option from your standpoint. I imagine you probably very early on had a conversation with the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I notice from Mr. St-Jean's comments that he acknowledged the possibility of a need for supplementary estimates. I think Mr. Wiersema was at that time in his position with the Treasury Board Secretariat, and obviously the feedback you would have received would be that you did need to go for supplementary estimates.
So you've got some accounting advice. It looks to me, at this point, as though the political interest would be to look for any way to avoid accountability to Parliament, given that I imagine there was some tension at the time, and this is not a good thing. Then we go to February and this meeting that we have. I believe the ad scam report had been put forward just prior to that, and I imagine things got all the more tense.
I'm wondering, first of all, was the ad scam report discussed in the meeting in February?