Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Information Commissioner testified twice before our committee, and I asked her the same question. When I asked her if the government had a culture of secrecy or transparency, she replied that it had a culture of secrecy. Obviously, I don't mean that as a definitive statement on her part, but that was her impression.
One thing is certain. Personally, I believe that, one way or another, we will receive the documents. At some point, they will show what's been redacted. The question is when. The minister is due to testify on Monday, which unfortunately leaves little time. As Ms. Damoff mentioned, when a document is redacted, the reasons for redaction are usually provided. It helps understand why.
The problem I see with that suggestion is that we have asked for the documents twice, and we have been denied access twice. I find it hard to believe in the good faith of the people we would ask to explain redaction. Having seen it elsewhere, I know that trade secrets and national security considerations have a wide berth. I have no problem asking someone I trust. The problem arises when I don't trust the individual.
In this case, I think we are incurring unnecessary delays and the lack of trust, which leads to mistrust, is not likely to make our work any easier. I'd like to be in a position to question the minister knowing all the facts. I don't want to say things I'm not sure of.
In my opinion, we need to get the unredacted documents as soon as possible.