Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do want to set the record straight on a couple of things, because my friend opposite.... I call him “my friend” because I do think of him in that way. I've had this conversation on several occasions. He also has met with individuals in the minister's office, who explained to him the frustration that we have also had in getting information from the department in respect of the breakdown.
Notwithstanding the above, we know exactly what the cost range is. More importantly, Madam Chair, what we also know is that the information the committee sought to find is now available publicly: 11,000 different submissions. I'm not entirely certain why there would be feigned outrage for information that is now available in the public domain. If folks are having a difficult time finding it, I will be glad to ensure that anybody who wants it has access to it.
The reality here is that there was over a million dollars in costs to find, for this committee, stuff that is actually available in the form that it was previously submitted. To repackage it so that it addresses whatever it is that the opposition wants at a cost of $1.2 million or $1.3 million seems to be a bit of a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Given that they speak about being the so-called party of fiscal prudence, I think they would be the ones who would be aghast that the government would be asked to spend money to package something in the way they want it packaged. The information is available. It's available to them. I would be glad to share it again with my colleagues if they would like it, but the idea that we would somehow be wasting money—and now time—to discuss this seems absolutely bananas.