Thank you, Madam Chair.
In this context, the goal of the motion obviously isn't to hold additional meetings. We trust things. I also think that the information we get will enable us to improve a report that can be useful to the person, such as the judge or commissioner, who will lead this independent public inquiry.
For my part, I'm not going to withdraw those two programs, because in this case, there's a federal structural program that ensures direct accountability for IT program providers, which are themselves largely responsible for the errors and cost overruns.
I would add that the beauty of the system is that the more errors providers make, the more lucrative it becomes for them. They're the ones who are hired to be able to fix their own problems, since they're the ones who created their own system. As we have clearly seen in committee, the public service no longer has the expertise to address these problems.
Personally, I'll keep the three programs as they're worded. It will give the commissioner more leeway to get to the bottom of things. It should be noted that the Cúram software project was originally supposed to cost $1.75 billion. However, according to the memo that the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario received in June, it cost $6.6 billion. According to the data that was provided to the committee, $3.4 billion from that amount is going into the pockets of IT companies.
Why was that money spent? Was it because the initial instructions for creating the program were wrong? Was it because the program was poorly designed? The professional services firm Deloitte also played a role that should be examined. Other firms were also hired.
I think that more than justifies establishing an independent public commission of inquiry, and it's important to avoid limiting ourselves and understand how IT companies operate. The name IBM comes up often, since those are very lucrative contracts.
Why are the same mistakes getting repeated? The Government of Quebec gave the private sector 20 times less money in total. Things were shaken up, and taxpayers are the ones who ultimately end up footing the bill. If we care about our seniors and our living conditions, the money we're sending to people who are already well-off isn't going to those who are most vulnerable.