If I could answer that, Mr. Scott, yes, I agree. I read section 4 as paying lip service to the Arar commission's recommendations, which included the very important respect for caveats. I read section 6 as almost an anti-caveat section, which actually empowers disclosure of information, potentially contrary to caveats. As the Arar commission pointed out, this can obviously have corrosive effects if it's shared with a partner who doesn't respect human rights.
It can also have security concerns if our allies say, “Well, we are imposing a caveat on this”, but once it goes to one of these 17 institutions, they are going to be empowered by law under section 6 to disclose it to some other person for some other purpose. That's anti-caveat language. Caveats are all about “You use this information, only you, only for this purpose”. Section 6 is anti-caveat language.