First, I feel like I'm at a bit of an impasse right now in that I think a good-faith exchange is taking place, all things considered, but I'm still having a hard time grasping the scope of the workload being requested. If we're talking about a million documents, which I'll take on trust, we still need to talk about how to streamline certain aspects, such as those related to correspondence or email. To me, those things are essential. We have to be able to determine when people became aware of this, what potential solutions were considered and, above all, when measures were taken to address the shortcomings.
Of course, we're still talking about Cúram and the skyrocketing costs. The estimates turned out to be completely unrealistic. I'll recap the timeline: It started at $1.7 billion, then rose to about $2.4 billion, then to $3.5 billion, then I believe to $4.4 billion, and now it's at $6.6 billion or thereabouts. Costs jumped significantly four times. I believe this is a matter of public interest.
I'm also trying to understand how the contracts evolved. How were firms like Deloitte, Accenture and IBM able to secure these contracts? What mandates were they given? We've already received some information, and we need to dig deeper. Those companies were also the ones implementing the solutions.
Apparently, if a company makes mistakes, it is paid to correct them, and taxpayers have to foot the exorbitant bill. We also need to establish accountability, given that the Prime Minister of the day was notified by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ms. Charette, in May.
Was there any other correspondence like that, which would have made the Prime Minister aware of how far off course things had gone? Were measures taken and made public? We haven't seen any.
These are important questions. At this point in time, based on the negotiations, I see nothing to suggest that a favourable amendment could be included in my motion.
This is not just about how the modernization program is being managed; it is also about the cost overruns and the new money they've asked for. It's also about how it was assessed under the circumstances.
I am open to clarifying the details of this motion a little. However, I think we need to understand the mistakes that were made so they will never be made again. That means we need to know what happened, obviously.