I respect Mr. Kramp. About the report of the Auditor General, he is right about one thing: she did not look at contracts. She looked at governance as well as at new approaches for the governance of the Parliamentary precinct. I would like to raise an issue for the members of the committee. I do not know if you have all read the documents provided by the department as additional information but there are major problems relating to accountability in the Parliamentary precinct. Since this document has been tabled, I believe it is also relevant. It was referred to in the study of the Auditor General and so I think it would be relevant to have a look at those contracts.
What Mr. Banks is asking for is information. The committee regularly asks for additional information. As a matter of fact, I intended to raise the issue here. I have put several requests to the deputy minister, Mr. Guimont, who has told us here that he has no objection to providing us with the next contracts for the Parliamentary precinct, the costs and the financial models. We had said that there had been a few surprises, and the officials were supposed to send us those documents which we have not yet received. I did some checking. During the first planning meeting, I asked our researcher if we have received all the information relating to that report and he said yes. After checking, I discovered that, unfortunately, the detailed information has not yet arrived. If you look at the blues, Mr. Guimont had said that he would provide the committee with that information, and that it would be descriptive and detailed. That is the same information being asked by Mr. Banks. So, I have no problem with supporting this motion since the original request was made officially in June. The department has not met its obligation to give us that additional information.