That doesn't make any sense, when the Auditor General can walk in, sit there, and she just testified that two terminals were available to her people to get exact information. You had a contractor you could have easily demanded the information from, having served the Government of Canada before, and you failed to ask that contractor to deliver that information to you. Why would that be, when we already had a contract under great controversy because there was already a problem with one? Wouldn't you have done your extra due diligence to make sure this one was accurate?
On December 7th, 2006. See this statement in context.