Mr. Chair, through you to our colleague Mr. Gerretsen, I think his question is an important one, because it goes to the very nature of what some people in the House of Commons continue to do: to create deliberately an exaggerated or misleading narrative while at the same time not benefiting from a government offer that stands again this morning—or I guess in early afternoon—for the Leader of the Opposition to receive the appropriate security clearance and then see the unredacted version.
The fact that Ms. May and the leader of the NDP took up the government offer, we think, is very constructive. You'll note that, having read the document, they seem to have a different view, one from the other. That perhaps tells us that it's important for people, having seen the unredacted report of the committee, to come to their own conclusions. Those redactions, as we noted earlier, were done by officials responsible for the protection of national security information, not done politically.
Why the Leader of the Opposition would refuse to, I can't speculate. I wondered the same thing myself, Mr. Gerretsen, but I do think it would be important for the credibility of his caucus colleagues, who continue to make outlandish and absurd allegations and assertions. They might have un petit moment de gêne, a little hesitation, about doing that if their boss said, “You know what, guys? Like, you're really making this stuff up.”
I don't know how their caucus would work. Neither would you, I assume, Mr. Gerretsen, but certainly I think there might be a little hesitancy about continuing to make stuff up all the time if your boss knew that what you were saying day after day may not be—