Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed, the firm that feels wronged can take legal action against the government, if it wishes, but I want to remind my colleagues on the committee that the role of elected officials on committees is to audit the work of the government.
We have a situation here that seems very concerning. There was a process in place. A jury was set up and submitted its official report, in which it designated the chosen firm, but the government subsequently reversed that decision on the basis of a survey that was not very objective or very scientific, I might add. So it raises questions.
The role of elected officials is really to shed light on this situation. Of course, legal action can be taken, at the private level, but the role of elected officials and a committee such as this one is really to examine what happened. Did the government live up to it? Has it risen to the occasion? Are the reasons it gives to elected officials valid? We are, collectively, in a way, the bosses of the government. We have to ask ourselves whether we trust its actions. Has the government shown itself to be worthy? Why didn't the government follow the process and respect the jury's decision?
So there are still a lot of questions to be asked on this subject, hence the motion, which I support, obviously. Some people say that this is a partisan motion. In my opinion, the great partisanship in all of this is that of a government that chooses not to respect the jury's official report. I think this is a fundamental issue, even though there seems to be no consensus in this regard around the table, and the elected members of the government party obviously want to defend the government's position. I think it's very important that we, as elected officials, be able to shed light on this situation and get to the bottom of things so that, as my colleague Mr. Paul‑Hus said, this kind of process doesn't happen again. We aren't in a banana republic, where the government invalidates the entire process it has put in place. We have to respect the partners who are investing time and effort. The government's word and respectability depend on it. So I think that's a critical question.
I also agree with Ms. Blaney, who says that there are many other topics of great importance. We know the difficulties that veterans are experiencing, and we know that there's a lot to do. I therefore hope that we'll be able to move on to other issues of great concern, but without minimizing what needs to be done here. It's important to understand why the government didn't respect the process and demonstrate that it was worthy of the trust of its partners.
Thank you.