Could I respond to the major points? I certainly understand the need for confidentiality, and I understand the need for the minister to have a certain amount of discretion to be able to do a deal, hopefully to the net benefit of taxpayers. I completely understand that, and it's not my intention to try to diminish this deal on behalf of my constituency, yours, or that of anyone else. I'm not out to thwart that. That is not the intent. It is merely to recognize that any time a government operates behind a self-imposed veil of secrecy, it is the duty of people around this place to question that and to try to see through the veil of secrecy.
A government, particularly this government, which ran on a platform of open and transparent government and accountability, has a greater burden of proof than most governments in the past--particularly because this was its mandate--to prove such to the Canadian people.
So if the minister comes here and gives legitimate reasons why particular points can't be answered or why particular information can't be forthcoming, he can at least try to tell people a little more forthrightly than he has done so far as to why that is the case and when in fact we can expect that.
I don't think it is too much to ask to have these questions put before him, and it is unreasonable for committee members to oppose allowing a minister, who has the discretion to say or not say what he wishes and who has lots of curtains to hide behind, to come here and answer these questions directly.