You understand that the committee's goal and the purpose of your presence here is, first, to clearly understand the act, the spirit and role of the act. However, we also need to see whether the implementation of the recent amendments meets expectations.
I have been a member of Parliament in Ottawa for about 15 months. I understand the importance of the confidentiality of a transaction between companies very well. Obviously, I'm not a stockbroker. But still, when a transaction is made, and I did that for 20 years, I bought other companies, it is essential and fundamental that the information between the companies be strictly confidential. Otherwise, it would make no sense.
We are often accused in the House of not being transparent. We saw this particularly in the case of PotashCorp. The word "transparency" is very broad. Myself, I have never understood why we were told we were not being transparent enough on the question of that specific transaction since we could not get access to the information.
In terms of transparency and confidentiality, do you think the information that the Minister may disclose under the act is sufficiently complete for the various parties around the table?
One region or another is going to be affected by a transaction. So it inevitably has an effect on individuals, on human beings. Do you think the information about the transaction itself is sufficiently general to disclose it to the public at large? I don't know whether you understand my question.