Mr. Chairman, aside from the fact that the motion calls for a number of restrictions under the Privacy Act, I'm trying to understand what purpose it serves. Aside from this fact, Mr. Savage's motion which was adopted this morning, and my two motions agreed to on Tuesday pretty much cover everything. Are we adding something new? Why repeat all of this, when all we need to do is refer back to the Privacy Act?
I'd like to hear your opinion on the subject, Mr. Chairman. If we open this door because we're afraid public servants will disclose information that they are not entitled to disclose, then this consideration should factor into all of our motions because in every case, information is being processed.
I fail to understand why we're insisting on this so much. As you so aptly said earlier, we are all responsible for the documents we disclose. I don't see why we are rehashing this. We now have three similar motions when all we want is some assurance that public servants treat information confidentially. However, by law, they are required to do just that. Therefore, to my mind, this motion serves no purpose.