Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is just a comment on what Mr. Short was saying. I understand that the information is private, but it no longer remains private once these charitable organizations benefit from public moneys. They benefit from public moneys, whether directly or indirectly, because the person who is contributing is getting a tax deduction or a tax credit and is therefore getting a reduction of his income taxes. I think there's a benefit there. I think he or she relinquishes his or her privacy when it comes to benefiting from government moneys.
The way I see the wording is more in reverse. If we say the minister “shall”, then he has the discretion to only publish a few, whereas when we put in the words "unless otherwise justified", then he has to publish all of them except those that don't need to be published.
It's going to be an obligation for him or her to just go ahead and make public all the information, instead of just doing so when he feels that he should. I understood what was said at the beginning and I feel that with this slight amendment we're justified in asking that the minister justify the occasions when he should not disclose.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.