Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Kusmierczyk said he would start with an amendment to strike paragraphs (g) and (h). I suppose his next proposed amendment will be to strike paragraphs (a) through (f), which would achieve the objective that he has made clear he wants, which is that he does not want taxpayers to be able to see what's in this contract. If he takes matters seriously, as he purports to, I think he would take seriously the role of taxpayers in looking at these documents.
Look, Chair, Conservatives put forward this motion. We believe the motion is good as is and should be supported as is. I do think it's important to make a distinction between (g) and (h), in that (g) is to provide an immediate report to the House on these matters, which is something that we think is worthwhile, and (h) is to say that in the event the documents are not produced there would be a follow-up from the committee.
In our view, these are both important, but (h) is substantially more important, because (h) provides a safety valve if the government doesn't provide the documents. By proposing to remove (g) and (h), Mr. Kusmierczyk has made it clear that the government's intention is to not provide these documents even if the committee orders them, because he doesn't want there to be any safety valve. I think it was evident in his comments that he doesn't think these documents should be provided, and he has proposed the removal of any kind of safety valve mechanism that would allow that.
I want to propose a subamendment—that is, to undelete (h)—which I think, though not rendering it perfect, substantially improves the amendment.