Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back at the committee. I see that you're still on the hurdle that we were trying to pass the last time I was on this committee, and that's with respect to the desire to have those who did the redactions come back and speak their minds about why they did what they did. I find it perplexing that we still haven't come to some resolution on the need for that to happen.
Before I go into those comments, I'd like to go back to something that Mr. Poilievre said earlier. In fact, it's something that he's been saying regularly, if you've been following him in the House during question period. I can appreciate it if that's difficult at times, but nonetheless, if you do take the time to listen to what he has to say, he keeps going on about this argument, and he made it in his speech a few moments ago. He keeps going on about this argument about how we're getting the worst results for the highest investment. Think about that. That's his assessment.
Only Conservatives would rate the effectiveness of dealing with a pandemic solely and completely on the economic contributions and results that come out of it. How is it possible that Mr. Poilievre only cares about talking about economics right now, about talking strictly from a fiscal sense about inputs and outputs ? He has absolutely no desire, for some reason, to talk about the social impacts of this situation.
The reality is—