I'll leave that to Mr. Stewart. My interest is on guillotine motions—rather than the guillotine as the focus of the French Revolution—and their accountability mechanisms, which were far more decapitating at the time.
I want to go back to the point here.
The Liberals were more concerned, at the time, about getting money to their well-connected friends rather than administering this program. They made the decision to give it to EDC, which had no expertise to do that. I had a question I wanted to follow up on with Finance. They said they looked at the options and there were not a lot, other than giving it to EDC.
However, the fact remains that there were a lot of options that could have been done. EDC contracted it out with a sole-source contract to Accenture, and then Accenture subcontracted that to one of its own subsidiaries. It begs the question of why they even would have gone to EDC when it was really Accenture that could have done this with any entity and may have had more accountability, because, as a Crown corporation, EDC was separate from certain accountability measures that could have been undertaken. EDC was a good example, as my colleague Mr. McCauley just highlighted. These are the issues at hand that are very troubling, and I think the Auditor General was right and appropriate in undertaking this study.
I know my reasonable amendment earlier was ruled out of order. Since I have the floor here, I would like to move a different amendment, if that is okay, Mr. Chair.