Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I completely agree with Mr. Green on the data issue.
I want to talk about what the Public Health Agency of Canada gave us this morning, which Ms. Hepfner referred to. I have no trouble believing that this data is useful for public health. However, we're wondering not only about the process, but also about the fact that the data can be personalized before being anonymized.
I'll go back to the redundancy issue regarding the two amendments. As the saying goes, “whoever can do more can do less.” One is subordinate to the other and there's some overlap.
Personally, I didn't have time to carefully read the document that we received this morning, with 45 minutes' notice, from the parliamentary secretary. This bothers me. I hope that this practice won't be adopted for all documents sent out in the future.
Nevertheless, I'm still concerned about the use of the words “unduly affected” because the meaning is broad. In general, it's important to move forward. I would suggest adding the word “recommendations” to the motion, and removing or defining the words “unduly affected”, which are quite subjective, unless we agree on a definition.
Believe me, I'm not filibustering. Since coming to Parliament, I've learned about the need for clarity. That's what I'm trying to add. I appreciate Mr. Fergus's amendment, which I don't think conflicts with my motion. It tries to add details and clarity. I'm just proposing to clarify what Mr. Fergus is trying to clarify.