I would like to thank the chair. Many of you know that I worked on the famous audio cassettes that we did not receive until recently. I am pleased to hear the Department of Public Works and Government Services admit that there were errors in the documents that were provided to you. So I hope that you enjoyed reading these recordings and that you were able to take advantage of the work done.
However, the two motions that I am tabling today seek to dig a little bit deeper into the research done on the changes being made currently to procurement in general. The response we received from the department is not dated. I don't know whether the clerk obtained the exact date of this document, but the one accompanying the audio cassettes implied that there were advantages in going forward with the new modus operandi of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
That piqued my curiosity so much that I consulted the draft contract on MERX to look at the call for tenders that they are referring to here. I have a number of concerns. For now, I would just ask that the department provide justifications. It also promised the committee that it would provide a business case, which we have not yet received. Can the chair request once again that this document be sent to us?
During my research and follow-up on other committee files, I remembered that I had collaborated on studies on large computer projects. The department promised to provide us with business cases on March 10, 2009. I am referring to a letter dated March 3. May of us were absent at that time. I'm sorry that Mr. Kramp is not here today, because he could confirm this request.
In this letter dated March 3, the department pledged to provide us with a business case on the Shared Services Initiative by March 2009. Given that this concerns the same thing, the notice of motion seeks simply to emphasize the importance of obtaining more information on this new approach. This concerns my first motion.
Do you want to deal with both motions, given that they are fairly similar?