My point was simply, Mr. Chair, that we should oppose the amendment put forward by Mr. Van Kesteren because he's calling for a shroud of secrecy to be put over the proceedings of this committee--and that secrecy should be used minimally. We of all people, the access to information, the freedom of information committee, should be allergic to secrecy. When the word “secrecy” comes up, we should recoil with horror. We're opposed to secrecy.
The sunlight is a powerful disinfectant, Mr. Chair, and freedom of information is the sunlight of government and democracy. I've heard it said that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes--the very root, the very cornerstone, of our democracy. To hear these guys suggest that, for no good reason other than to save themselves from being embarrassed, we should put this testimony under a shroud of secrecy to buy time so that the summer recess can come along is appalling to me. I think that's reprehensible, and we should not entertain it. We should go ahead and vote in favour of the motion to adopt the fourth report and hear the testimony from these decent people who have come to give sworn testimony before us today.