I know that there are probably many more questions than we have time to get answers to, but it strikes me that in most cases when we're trying to resolve a situation, we should go back to the basics and ask what the spirit of the act was to begin with. What was Parliament trying to do? What was our government attempting to do when we established your office?
It would appear to me the spirit is, if you had to balance the scale, to weigh in favour of transparency. That's what the intent is here: to allow individuals who want to find out more about the inner workings of government and have specific questions about particular cases to have the ability to do that through ATIs. I think that should be our guiding light in any considerations we have, and I hope you agree.
Honestly, the more I hear you both speak and the more I hear the interventions from my colleagues opposite, I can't see any other true resolution unless we do make amendments to the act. I share your views on that. I think the challenge for our committee, if we want to provide clarity to the highest degree possible, is to determine exactly how those amendments are brought forward. The precision of wording will obviously be a part of that, but what do we need to do in order to amend the act to satisfy both the requesters' rights and the rights of Parliament? That's a great premise to begin, but I haven't got an answer just yet. I was looking for a little guidance.
I'd like a couple of comments on whether you think we're perhaps going on the right track.