I have two concerns about the motion. First of all, the date is not realistic.
Nor is it realistic to suggest that the views of the former Information Commissioner are the final position on the issue. I mean, we had contradictory testimony from Auditor General Sheila Fraser on the subject of access to information.
As such, if you're going to call on the government to introduce legislation to update the Access to Information Act because one former commissioner wanted changes made, then you have to keep in mind the views of another officer of Parliament, in this case probably the most prominent one, the Auditor General. She had a serious disagreement with Mr. Reid about the question of draft audits and whether they should be susceptible to access.
So to make this proposal more realistic for the government and to increase the possibility of support, we would add, after “Information Commissioner Mr. John Reid”, the phrase, “while taking into consideration the cautions on the subject made by Auditor General Sheila Fraser”.