Mr. Chairman, I think when we looked at this motion that came forward out of the testimony of Professor Burton, we understood that we wanted to get the body of what his report talked about. We wanted to understand the intricacies of his report.
The fact that there was a classified and an unclassified report was frustrating to some, because I think we have an idea that there are massive amounts of hidden information here that the committee should know.
From what we have heard, there is information that has been blotted out—basically names of people in the report who, when they gave information, gave it with the idea that they were giving it confidentially. That is the part that is blotted out. That's why they gave their information; they gave it with that understanding.
As far as trying to keep consistent with the Access to Information Act is concerned, I think the government has honoured their wishes and others' by making sure that names and some of those types of particulars were left out of the report.
Only a small amount of information was excluded from the public report, and its exclusion in no way alters the report or changes or hides any assessment that's provided in the report by Professor Burton.
So I think this motion certainly is in order, but when you begin to ask for classified information, you're taking a major step. I know that what you can do down the road is hurt the whole process by going to people who say, “Yes, we can disclose some information, but we'd rather our names not be in there.” In quoting, they put the name in with the understanding that it stays classified. Now, if we ask that it be unclassified, those people will not disclose in the future.
So I would not support the motion. We've already been told that it's such minimal amounts that are blotted out.