This is a little bit disappointing, and I think it's important to just make the case very clearly.
Liberals have said that they do not believe they should provide these documents, which is mind-boggling but typical of this government. They don't believe that they owe taxpayers an explanation of how taxpayers' money is being spent.
I would hope that we would have had some agreement from the opposition that these documents should be provided. The removal of (g) and (h), as proposed by the Liberals, has the effect of removing the mechanism by which the committee can actually substantively follow up and insist that these documents come. Without those provisions in there, we know what's going to happen. The documents are not going to be provided, effectively, as was made clear by Mr. Kusmierczyk's comments, and then, when they're not provided, the most we can do is propose another motion, to which likely the Liberals will insert additional roadblocks, and they'll try to lean on their coalition partners again to prevent this moving forward.
Paragraph (h) provides a mechanism by which this committee can ensure those documents come. Liberals don't want (h) to be in there because they don't want the documents to be provided. They don't plan to provide the documents. We've put (h) in there because we believe the documents should be provided and we need a mechanism to ensure those documents will be provided. If the opposition parties actually want these documents to be provided, we need (h) in there. If they don't want these documents provided, if other opposition parties want to go along with the Liberals in covering up these documents, then they'll support Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment.
We're very much interested in working with others on this. If two weeks is preferable to one week—