Thank you.
Honestly, it's the duty of all members of this committee to assess what happened. Ms. Fancy was referring to the committee's role at the start. Its role is obviously to conduct analyses and hold the government to account. That's part of the work for all our colleagues, and, frankly, with a cost overrun of $5 billion compared with the initial estimate, I think it goes without saying that an analysis is clearly necessary. There has to be a closer look at what happened during this system's implementation.
I fully understand what my colleagues are telling me, and I'm trying to be as open as possible to their arguments, which are that millions of Canadians were being processed on paper and that all that computerization can lead to cost overruns. We just experienced this in Quebec with the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec: it cost $1.5 billion. It's the same thing: It had been estimated at much lower amounts than that. The important thing for all Canadians is to know what really happened to prevent it from happening again.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I 100% support the amendment that my colleagues proposed to shed light on this important scandal. Let us call it what it is; that's the real word. I don't like to use it, but it's a scandal to see that a project estimated at $1.6 billion has ended up at $6.6 billion, as we speak, and it isn't done yet. Obviously, I think we need to get to the bottom of this.
Thank you very much.