Since I am now an official member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of course, I would lean towards opposing this motion, because we are studying the same one at that committee. This motion is a little redundant.
That said, to respond to Mr. Garon’s comments, and to set out a framework for those who will look into this, I would say that we would usually write “under the Access to Information Act.” That way, when third parties are involved, it forces the government to ask them if they agree with having their personal information published. These are not people who work for the government. They could be regular citizens or representatives of private businesses that deal with the government, but they still have personal information, and I respect that.
So, instead of removing the words “without redactions,” I would simply replace them with “under the Access to Information Act.” I don't know if my colleague agrees, but I'm giving him a chance.