Thank you, Mr. Chair and thanks to the committee for taking time to consider the amendment that I put forward.
Really, I want to make this terse or short. I'm not going to use the word “brief”, but I'm going to make this short.
In Madame Gaudreau's amendment that was adopted by the committee, which was the second amendment on Mr. Angus's motion, if I'm not mistaken there was a section pertaining to Speakers' Spotlight and to having a copy of the records and related speeches going back to, I believe, October 14, 2008. If I'm not understanding that correctly or if I have misunderstood the amendment, please correct me if I'm wrong.
What this would allow us to do, very simply, is to ensure that this request for this set of documents in (a) would comply with Canadian and provincial privacy laws. Speakers' Spotlight have handled their documents in compliance with—and I'm assuming they're going to be in compliance with—all of the regulatory requirements. We understand that they are required to hold documents for a period of, I believe, seven years. It is within their right to do so, and within the Privacy Act.
So, respecting the view of Speakers' Spotlight and their view of the production motion, we don't want to put forward an amended motion that would then make Speakers' Spotlight in contempt of Parliament. The documents they had are no longer there because they were allowed to legally, within their purview and within the existing laws, not have to hold them any further. Much as is, I believe, the case with tax records and personal records, I think you have to maintain your documents for seven years. Having worked in the accounting world for a number of years, I think it's very similar. This would be the same sort of precedent.
We would not want to put any organization in contempt of Parliament for doing something that was legally within its right, and we as a committee have stated such. They have done something that was legally correct, which they could do, and we have put them in a situation in which they cannot bring forth documents that they no longer have because it was within their right to no longer have them.
That's why I brought forward this amendment and that's what it refers to.
I hope I've been clear on that.
Thank you.