I want to focus on recommendation II.1, which has to do with the documents and information that the CEO deems necessary to verify that the party and its chief agent have complied with the requirements of the act with respect to the election expenses return. The Conservatives and the Liberals disagree with this recommendation. That is the position of the older parties. The younger parties, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—which, granted, is a bit older than the Bloc—do not seem to have anything negative to say about this recommendation.
The CEO says in his report that, unlike candidates and other regulated entities, political parties are not required to provide any documentary evidence to support their returns. In their document, the Conservatives disagree with the recommendation, saying that the documents in question could be misused and that, at the end of the day, the auditor is the best person to carry out the audit function.
I will start with you, Mr. Gardner. Is there a reason why the Liberals—and we will see what Mr. Arnold has to say shortly—and the Conservatives would disagree with having to provide those documents to the CEO? What is the catch?