Thank you, Chair.
I've been looking at this wording very, very carefully, in terms of what Ms. Sidhu has presented as an amendment. I just don't understand where the fear is coming from that we will not get good information. Essentially, we're asking the department to do “its assessment and vetting in gathering and releasing the documents as it would be done through the access to information process”. That is a process that has been approved. It has become almost standard language. It obviously does protect individuals in terms of their personal information—many people are very concerned about the privacy of their personal information—but in no way does it preclude the gathering of important information that we all would like to get through the gist of this motion. It simply puts in a layer of protection.
Dr. Kitchen's motion, which we all passed on June 15, had exactly the same language in it. We have yet to see the results of that particular motion, because the date was amended. I just fail to understand how we're going to be denied the type of important information, substantive information that led to decision-making, by ensuring that personal privacy is protected.
Thank you, Chair.