Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for your attendance today, sir. I appreciate it.
I have to tell you, though, I'm having some trouble understanding how all this hangs together. We know, for instance, that on May 8, 2001, Jean-Marc Bard, who was the executive assistant to Minister Alfonso Gagliano, sent word that the project was to be halted.
I perused Hansard, and I don't see where we actually chase down why a bureaucracy would take it upon itself to continue something after the minister said to halt. At some point, somebody of great authority has to say start again. We did not find out anything about that particular juncture. That remains an unanswered question. What happened was that they went ahead anyway.
Here's the part that's difficult. The deal, as has already been pointed out, was signed when you stepped in. Now, most people if they come across something.... “Oh, I'm not so sure that's the greatest idea. Where is it at?” “Well, we've already signed the agreement. It's a done deal.” “Damn!” You're a little upset, but that's about the end of it.
You say, sir, that you had questions about this million dollars and that some people didn't want to know. Earlier, you talked about the competency of the wonderful staff we have, and I agree with that. But don't you think those very competent people would have also taken the time to ask around? Would they not have discovered the million dollars that would have been spent?
I don't understand what was so unique about your analysis that nobody else in the entire government had thought that warranted a review of a signed contract that would cost money to get out of right from the get-go. What made you think you knew so much about this, that you had an insight they didn't, that justified reviewing a process that already had a signed contract?