Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I moved the motion that led to these hearings, and I'd like to read back to the committee and witnesses that motion, because we are straying far afield from it. It is a very simple, limited, and discrete motion: “That the committee investigate and report on issues related to the alleged disclosure of the names of Access to Information applicants to political staff of the current and previous governments.” Point—period.
It's not a general, open-ended discussion of access to information policy. We've had that at this committee; we can have it in the future. It's an issue, understandably, of perpetual debate. But we're not here to discuss sidetracking and all these other practices that appear to be perfectly legal, according to the information and privacy commissioners' offices, which appeared before us. We're here to discuss the alleged disclosure of the names of ATI applicants to political staff.
I have a simple question, and I think it's the only relevant question really for the witnesses, and I'm not quite sure why we're having witnesses who don't seem to speak directly to the motion; I wish we could bear down on this. Quite frankly, these hearings are happening because the opposition alleged the government had deliberately violated the Privacy Act in at least one instance. I'd like to know whether that is true
So I have a simple question for any of the witnesses. Do you have any concrete, specific, tangible evidence that you can furnish the committee with of the names of ATI applicants being furnished to political staff?