Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I can clarify a few things for my colleagues, who seem to be misunderstanding the minister's letter.
It seems very clear to me that the minister is suggesting that we need to do a more fulsome study. He referred in his letter to his appearances before the committee in 2007, 2008, and 2009. At these appearances, he pointed out that the government had tabled a discussion paper and a series of legislative proposals prepared by former Information Commissioner John Reid. He has suggested that we study this material and undertake a full review of the act, rather than a short-form update of it. It's clear that this is his view, and it makes sense to me. Why would you amend the act twice when you can amend it once and do a proper job?
There's nothing to be served by having the minister come back here again. He stated very clearly that it would be worthwhile to have a full study of Commissioner Reid's report and discussion paper, to examine witnesses in connection with that report, and then to make recommendations on a thorough updating of the act. This seems to be the reasonable thing to do. I think the minister was clear on that. There's no obfuscation or any doubt about what he's suggesting. He made it clear several times when he appeared before the committee.
I'm sure the members opposite would love another opportunity to examine the minister and make speeches to him, but I don't think the taxpayers of Canada will gain anything by that. I think we should continue to study this important matter. We should take a look at Commissioner Reid's report in its entirety, and we should undertake a study to see how the Access to Information Act could be amended from top to bottom, not just in a few summary areas.