Thank you very much. I'm not quite sure what MP Fisher's point is.
The point, from my perspective, is this: We're talking about who should be doing the vetting of the documents. I think that there is an office that can be set up to do it outside of the department. Perhaps then, in terms of ensuring that the documents are vetted in a non-partisan way, without any undue influence of any sort, or the perception of it, the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons is well suited for this. That is the purpose here.
I will remind the committee members that on February 26, the language about using the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to do this work was, in fact, adopted by this committee. This is what I'm proposing to go forward with.
It's already been admitted by MP Fisher that the last set of documents that came back was overly redacted. We already know that. We already acknowledged that. I think it would be important to go through this different process.
The other thing is that, to somehow suggest that going through the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons would be deficient, with all due respect, I disagree with any such suggestions. In fact, I would argue that they are well placed to do this work and can address the concerns of privacy protection. Having them do the work does not eliminate the privacy protection, as has been suggested by a member. It does not eliminate that at all.
At the same time, it can ensure that the information the committee is seeking can be made available, with the privacy protections intact, and it can ensure that the public gets the necessary information about what's happened with respect to this issue around masking.