Chair, I have some sympathy for Mr. D'Amours' concerns, but I've also worked with Mr. Kramp for many years and never has there been any occasion when what he said differed from what he did or what he was prepared to back up, including deals that were in place for months.
But I do understand Mr. D'Amours' concern. Let's be open about it. The concern is that there's an attempt to put in a filter that may deny the committee documents or people that we would otherwise get.
Might I suggest, Chair, in the interests of trying to be helpful, that out of respect for Mr. D'Amours' concerns, we deal with the amended motion separately. Then we can deal with Mr. Kramp's motion as a stand-up or simplify it even further, where we just make the case that we will bring in the Privacy Commissioner at the same time as we're bringing in Mr. Walsh: that we're going to get a briefing on the legality of summonses and what we do with the absent former commissioner and at the same time we would take advice from the Privacy Commissioner on parameters of privacy questions, issues, and documents that we might request.
If we did it separately, that would allow Mr. D'Amours to feel that nothing in here is going to be filtered out, and we would still allow Mr. Kramp to place what is probably an advisedly good move in front of the committee. I hope that's helpful, Chair.