Very briefly, I'm not going to go into it a whole lot.
I'm not disagreeing at all with the comments the chair has just made in respect of Mr. Kramp. I agree that's the way it should be. I agree that this 12 seconds, and it may not sound like a lot.... I say to colleagues, you heard the chair ask our witnesses if there is any precedent. These things matter because they do set a precedent, not just in Canada but in our provinces and territories, and in the Commonwealth in particular. The principle matters significantly, particularly to opposition members, to ensure that we can get access to the same information government members can when we're dealing with issues.
The second thing I want to raise is that the process had us raising an eyebrow. There was resistance from the beginning. The first time, Chair, we were told there weren't transcripts. We wanted transcripts. They said we'll give you transcripts. It was too expensive to do the transcripts. Then we went to “the tapes are coming”, and then there was a problem. I'm pointing out that this is not just in the cold. The principle that we receive the material and then we take it upon ourselves as members of Parliament and the committee to decide what we would do with the issue of privacy is the correct process. It starts with the principle of the department responding to a standing committee's request for information in its entirety, untampered.
Therefore, my motion speaks very directly. It's giving the department a chance to go back, give this a bit of a rethink because of what they've heard here, and I hope they'll respond. We'll deal with the issue of privacy. We'll take the responsibility. We're the ones who are accountable to the Canadian people, and then the proper procedures will have been followed.