What I heard the gentleman from the finance team say here is that the information called for in paragraphs (a) and (b) is actually included in the measures that are normally published in the federal tax expenditures, and that paragraph (c), the geographic distribution, is not published there, but there is greenhouse square footage by region in another area. In fact, the Conservatives would have access to the information that they're requesting already. Therefore, the amendment here is duplicative.
If they didn't want to do the work of looking in multiple places, they could ask the PBO to draw it together and do some analysis for them. Essentially, this is duplicative. It's information that's already tracked. I'll grant that it's in two different departments, but I don't see why that should be a barrier. Transparency is already there, so we'll be voting against.