Thank you, and I thank my colleague Madam Kusie for her consideration.
I think what I understood is that she's comfortable to substitute number 4 to deal with solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence, and also to redact for privacy issues. Again, this is consistent with the other two committees. I think she was okay with that.
I think her issue was with the second issue that I raised with respect to emails.
What I would suggest to Ms. Kusie is that when people prepare official documents or documents that relate to guidance, I think they're thinking about the issue at hand. Emails, even between two people we've named in this, can be emails that people are flippantly sending to one another. That can include all kinds of comments that they would never have considered relevant to the subject, but they would be part of a larger email that may contain excerpts related to the CERB or something else.
I'm wondering if perhaps we could start with the deletion of “emails”, and if there's something you think then is missing, we can work back. I just don't think that we need all the emails that have been exchanged.
Again, remember that this is not only emails between these named people; any email that the person exchanged with a third party that related to that subject matter would then also be included. I think that's a pretty wide scope. Again, I don't think that's consistent with what's been requested at other committees.
I would humbly request that you might consider just removing the word “emails”. If not, I'm happy to propose it as a separate amendment, and we can debate that amendment.