I just want to say that I think that Mr. Baldinelli's motion actually dovetails nicely on the study, because we are also going to be looking at CARM shortly.
ArriveCAN was a program that was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. We all know that there were incredible deficiencies in that program.
If you were to analogize that, actually, to something that more people can relate to, for example, if you were to look at hiring someone for $8,000 to repair your roof and then they came and gave you the bill at the end of the day and said, here's your bill, actually, for $6 million, no one would put up with that. Add on top of it that the roof leaks and you find out that 75% of the people who allegedly are part of the invoice actually did no work on the roof, and you probably wouldn't pay the invoice.
I think it's pertinent for us to look at this, especially in light of CARM, which we know is coming. CARM, we understand, might have cost $400 million at this point. Maybe that was something that was supposed to cost $40,000 and is now at $400 million.
I think it's relevant to get to the bottom of what happened with the ArriveCAN app so that we don't have this happen with CARM. It would be incredibly detrimental to Canadian trade if it were to operate in any way, shape or form like the efficiency of the ArriveCAN app.
I think this is a reasonable motion that the committee can support today, and then we can get on to the important business that we have with respect to this study.