So, it happens, but the decision is the committee's. As you said, this is a committee right that has its origins in the Constitution Act, 1867. So we should be able to have access to the documents in the way the committee ordered. Of course, we have talked a lot about the content, but now the form is the issue, meaning the way in which the committee's order has been responded to. This is what Mr. Poilievre clearly set out in his motion.
How would we go about describing that practice? My assumption is that officials are, to an extent, overstepping their rights by deciding to change the provisions of the committee's order.