Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think perhaps we can find a compromise approach here. This is what I would like to suggest and the points that I would like to make.
On the issue of privacy, I think everybody is generally in agreement that privacy issues like names and emails should be protected. To that end, I think we should note, too, that in privacy versus access to information, the scope of issues is different. In access to information, the scope is far broader than that of privacy. Maybe we can land on saying that for privacy purposes, such as names and emails, we can look to apply the protection of privacy with these documents, and that instead of having the government or the department officials do the vetting of these documents, this should actually be done through the law clerk's office so that we can in fact achieve both. I'm hoping that all of the parties can come to an agreement on this.
Previously, HESA passed a motion on February 26, as I understand...that they might be on board to request the law clerk for vetting privacy. I think that actually achieves what we want to achieve here. I'd like to see whether or not Ms. Sidhu would withdraw her amendment and then table a different one—I'd be happy to table a different one—to have the law clerk do the vetting for privacy purposes.
Finally, just to refresh everybody's memory with regard to the February 26 motion I talked about—it was possibly my colleague Don Davies who moved this motion—the issue was to have the law clerk vet for privacy, cabinet confidence and national security. Those were the central themes that were applied to access to information.
