I think I understand correctly. It's the clarification on what's being requested. It's related to the contribution agreement between ISED and SDTC; that is really what is being requested here. Shouldn't it be subject to the same Access to Information Act in order to...? I don't know what's in that. I haven't reviewed that agreement, so I don't know what's in there, but to me, if there's anything that should be redacted, then it should be. It shouldn't be released to the public.
I just have a concern that if we say “without redactions”, we're assuming what's in that agreement, perhaps. I think I understand that it's not going to include....
Monsieur Garon, you actually said that it won't include any references to any companies, which I think is a good clarification. However, shouldn't it also be subject to the same kinds of requirements that an access to information request would be, in terms of making sure that anything that could be revealing or sensitive should be redacted?
I felt pretty comfortable when we were going down that route. I was getting more comfortable with this. Now I'm feeling like I'm back to.... I appreciate the clarification on what's being requested, because I think there was a lack of clarity on that to some degree, but now I'm thinking about what else could be in there that might not be relevant but could be sensitive information to either SDTC or ISED. However, I'm not too sure what's in it.
I think Mr. Perkins said that he's really looking for what SDTC is allowed to spend money on. I think that's the intention here, but I'm not sure about the motion being as clear as it could be.
I'll have to think about that. I need another minute or two to confer with colleagues to see if we can vote in support of that, because I'm not sure we can.