Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
You can't be against apple pie, which means wanting to get to the bottom of things, wanting to identify everything that's wrong and find viable, sustainable solutions.
Several of the people mentioned in the motion have already appeared before the committee. They have been asked very pointed questions, sometimes bordering on the aggressive. I'm not against the motion in terms of its substance, but I wonder whether we're going to manage to find anything other than what's already there in the tens of thousands of pages we have about the McKinsey firm, as well as in the Hansard minutes.
That being said, if committee members feel the need to meet with these people, because the issue makes them emotional and they believe it's important, we could do so. In my opinion, the problem with this motion is its wording and lack of precision. We're talking, for example, about public servants from National Defence and several agencies and departments.
Do we intend to meet with every public servant whose name appears on a contract? Is that the intention? How many public servants are assigned to a contract? How many contracts are there?
We're talking about 97 contracts. Do we really want to meet each and every public servant whose name appears on a contract to try to find out where the problem is and see if these public servants are, at the end of the day, involved in any way, near or far, directly or indirectly, with the McKinsey firm?
The motion lacks precision. What do we want? What is the objective?
We should indeed avoid making the mistake that was made in awarding the contracts we're looking at, of not knowing exactly what we want. I understand that we want the truth. We want to find solutions. We want to get to the bottom of things. I understand all that, and it's essential.
Is this the right way to go, in such a broad, non-specific manner? Ultimately, it could even be detrimental. When you cast your net so widely and so imprecisely, you run a greater risk of getting lost in a maze of more or less relevant information. There's also the risk that public servants will fear being punished for having forgotten steps, even unconsciously, which could make them distrust the committee. Nobody wants that. We want the truth, but how do we want it? What consequences would we be prepared to face as a committee?
We need to respond to all of this. As I was saying, we certainly need to look at the contracts awarded to the McKinsey firm. It's absolutely aberrant and abnormal to see that justifications were missing from 58% of the contracts. I repeat, it's staggering. It's flabbergasting.
How, though, are we going to do this? Should we invite every single public servant working in the departments? There would be no end to it.
Here are my final questions. How many meetings will we need to schedule to meet them all? Should we meet the witnesses all at once or one by one? When would we find the time to do this? Are we going to exhaust our interpreters and technicians by forcing them to come during the summer, in July and August? Is this what we're looking for?
I'm convinced that no, that's not what we're looking for. At least, I'm not. I don't want to cause stress, burnout for this. I want to hear the truth, not destroy the people we work with and who work for us.
Yes, we need to study the McKinsey case, get to the bottom of it and find the truth. However, the motion needs to be improved and clarified. I suggest my colleagues seek consensus and clarify the motion so as to answer, at the very least, some of the many questions I've put forward in the last few minutes.
Thank you.