Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had the opportunity to read the motion. In my mind, I compartmentalized it into certain aspects. I started with the value. I agree that we need to really look at and understand the money that the taxpayers entrust us to spend in the right way. Then there are protocols in place. Gaps have been identified. There are mitigation strategies. From a value proposition of a study of this nature, I definitely support it.
I also looked at the sense of urgency. I looked at the sense of urgency versus other topics that are in play. I had the opportunity to do a little bit of number crunching. By the end of this week, we will have completed our first session on procurement diversity. We will be left with three more sessions on outsourcing contracts, three more sessions on procurement diversity, and at least one session on shipbuilding. I believe the supplementary estimates (B) are going to come to our committee, so there are going to be at least two meetings on the supplementary estimates (B). Based on my numbers, a total of about nine meetings are in front of us.
Now we have another motion, which is relevant to outsourcing, so that's now 10. This will take us way beyond the 24th. With the prescribed start date of October 24, I'm just looking at a pragmatic sequencing of events that we have and then comparing the urgency of that. I don't want to undermine or in any way say that this is not important. I'm not talking about the importance. I'm talking about the urgency.
Also, I want to be able to discuss why there would be three meetings. Do you have in mind that each one of the departments would be discussed separately? I'm just trying to understand. Three meetings means about six hours. In this session, we will have only another six or seven meetings remaining, if there is anything else we want to do. This would be 50% of what's left. I'd really like to get an understanding of that. The start time, which I talked about, would be around October 24.
Also, there's the volume of data. You've gone back to 2015. Can you expand on that? Why 2015? I would understand if you said, “I would like to get an understanding of the breakdown of 2022 and the specific trip.” Then, if other information revealed itself, you would be in a position to come back and say, “Hey, you know what? This thing popped up, so now I would like to get a better understanding.” Going back to 2015, I feel.... I'm just talking about myself. That's the time when I started. Why not 2010 or 2019?
Again, going back to 2015 is going to generate a lot of information. A lot of information on that will be coming to us on October 21, and then we will need to process that to get to a meaningful contribution on October 24. It is an amount of information that I personally won't be able to process.
I would like to put on the table that I see the value. Again, it has to be put into perspective—the urgency, the scope, the number of meetings, the start time and the volume of data being asked for. It would be good to get some feedback on that so we could put it into perspective. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to work together, if you're amenable, over the next while to address the urgency, the value, the scope, the number of meetings, the start time and the volume of data, and probably, in a very structured manner, to have one meeting to get an understanding of what happened in 2022, and then see whether we'll discover something else.
To me, this is going to open up a floodgate. It's a shotgun approach, and I understand that. If the objective of this, which I truly see the value of, is coming up with recommendations, I'm not sure how that shotgun approach is going to give us that.
I thank you for listening.