Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, it was my colleague who talked about the importance of transparency. Transparency is the basis of her amendment; that's why she proposed it. However, it's very important to understand that in addition to the principle of transparency, we must also consider the principle of confidentiality of personal information. As part of this debate, it's our responsibility to remember that these two principles have opposing objectives, and that a balance must be found.
The goal is to ensure that charities, which have a charitable mandate, act in accordance with Canadian law. By law, the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for conducting an investigation. We need to ensure that Canadians have confidence in these organizations when they make donations. The Canada Revenue Agency is also subject to its own legislation, criteria and constraints. No one would want a data leak at the Agency, for example.
Transparency is important, because it increases public trust and improves the way our charities are run. However, I don't think we should be irresponsible in wanting to make everything public, regardless of the consequences for third parties who are directly or indirectly affected. I've witnessed cases where committees have investigated transparency issues, but in the end, the company's activities were in full compliance with the law. Despite this, people were questioned about their political affiliation. If a Conservative works with a Liberal, their work is sometimes thrown out, because people think the two can't get along. This type of approach is truly unworthy of a parliamentary committee.
I am adamant: this proposal does not aim for transparency, but rather at making copy the Journal de Montréal.