Chair, I will take it then.
I find it very discouraging that we have been around this a few times, and we are trying to bring through a subamendment, if it hasn't become overtly obvious by this point. What we're trying to do is to bring some points back to this so that the reliability and the clarity of the information that is coming back is done in a way that people can properly understand it. What we're hearing—and through this discussion we're hearing quite a bit from the other side—is about timing, about 24 hours and needing this 24 hours.
It leads me to the conclusion that all that's really wanted is some kind of smoking gun, which the Conservatives think exists out there. I think they're going to be very disappointed when we do finally come to some kind of conclusion as to how the information will come back and in what way so as to make it as clean and clear as possible.
Some of my colleagues pointed out in their speeches earlier—Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fragiskatos—exactly why so much of the information was redacted. I know that Mr. Poilievre had the opportunity to do a little grandstanding, as I said earlier, and stand at the podium and wave around his blacked-out pages, but if you actually take the time to look and to just go in and see the notes next to that blacked-out stuff, which I look forward to sharing with the committee when we get back to the main motion because I realize we are on the amendment right now, you end up seeing that the vast majority of it is extremely disconnected to this actual issue. That's the only reason it's being blacked out.
I look forward to the opportunity to really dive into that in a little bit and to share in great detail what is in those pages, because I think that the Canadian public, quite frankly, has the right to understand that.
Mr. Poilievre wants to paint the picture that some political operative sat in a room on the top floor of West Block with a big, black, thick Sharpie marker and went through all of these documents line by line blacking everything out. In reality, it was done in a very methodical way through independent individuals who are concealing information that is just not germane to the motion that was put forward by this committee. That, ultimately, is what's there.
I realize that the members of the opposition are getting a little bit frustrated—rightfully so—that this is taking a long time, but what the Liberal members are trying to do here, if I have to make it extremely clear, is to put some parameters around how the information comes back, making sure that the information matches up perfectly, as I tried through one subamendment and then through the other subamendment, understanding that it could take a lot of time.
The other subamendment was about at least annotating and cross-correlating where the pages are so that it becomes easier for people to see that. You're routinely seeing members of the opposition completely shoot that down because there's no interest in that, because that's not their end game here. Their end game is to wave around more blacked-out pages.
I think it's extremely unfortunate because it's disingenuous to the intellect of the public. It's suggesting that the public can be easily lost in the idea—