I think there's something to be said for transparency in the real costs. Sometimes in these kinds of discussions around committee tables and elsewhere, we end up pushing what's going on off the books instead of having a very open accounting about how it all happens.
I'm not casting any aspersions on current members. I'm, of course, speaking about what happened in the nineties, but sometimes the members who want to benefit from a public conversation about stopping something are the people who advocate later for it to come back in a way that's less transparent. I would say we ought to be careful.
I'm comfortable endorsing a way of doing it that is at least transparent. I'm saying this as somebody who has yet to participate in an in-person meeting of this committee. I'm certainly prepared to support a way that's transparent about which committees are using how much in resources to pay for things such as food. As I think Mr. Gerretsen mentioned, this is about the House paying itself, and this is a way of documenting how much of the resources are being provided to this committee specifically.
There's something to be said for transparency here. I am concerned that we will end up pushing under the table information about the consumption among members, rather than proceeding in a way that documents it clearly.