I would again encourage you to clarify the law. If you want more transparency, make it a legal requirement and define the concept. Speaking about the RCMP for instance, the RCMP's premise, and perhaps that was behind the minister's answer yesterday, is to try to be transparent but to protect its methods of operation so that criminals do not know how they function, because of course investigations would be impeded. This question of protecting methods of operation is always in the minds of police and government officials answering questions like this.
I heard yesterday something that looked like a standard to me, which you might wish to consider. It would be that the government and the police would have an obligation of transparency, subject only to what is necessary to protect police methods and the integrity of investigations. In other words, the standard would be transparency.
The exception would be limited only to what is necessary. Perhaps if that was clearer—not perhaps. It is clear to me because I've had many occasions—and I'm not speaking about the minister; I'm talking about conversations over the years with law enforcement and national security, and it's not their starting point to say things that might impede their investigations. Sometimes they're overly cautious in assessing the balance between transparency and the protection of methods.
If the law was clearer that transparency is the rule and only when necessary to protect police methods is it acceptable to not be transparent, there might be progress.