Before we go, I want to mention something.
Today, I made a request to the clerks, Mr. Palmer and Ms. Burke. I think the documents in the digital binder should be identified more clearly. Obviously, it's not the clerks' fault, but I would love it if there was a better way to identify documents. I'm referring to things like indicating the date of submission, document type, the name of the person who submitted it and the time it was submitted. That would make it easier for us to work with the lists. Otherwise, it's really tough to establish the connection to a document when it is labelled simply as “Document,” even though it's a letter, an email or a report.
I'm curious as to whether the members of the committee are finding it as hard as I am to work with the documents. Am I the only one? Do the committee members think the documents should be identified more clearly so that we can make the necessary connections?
We can ask the people producing the documents to do it. Right now, we've received more documents. We already had some thousand pages, and we are receiving more documentation from the same organizations, like the Canada Border Services Agency. It's important to tie them together. Do the newly received documents represent changes to the previous ones, or are they altogether new documents?
I think the people producing the documents should be responsible for reconciling them and sending only one version. That would make everybody's job easier.
The last thing I wanted to talk about was redacted documents, which we talked about last week. I think redactions should be accompanied by explanations. I'm not sure where the committee stands, but I think the people producing the documents should have to provide them unredacted, and when that's not possible, they should have to explain each redaction. That way, we could determine whether the redaction was appropriate or not. Otherwise, it's a free-for-all.