I see your point of view. I simply take the position that there are some limited categories of information, and when it is not absolutely necessarily for anybody—be it a parliamentarian or anybody else—to have them in order to discharge their functions, then they shouldn't have them. Witness protection is one. Information relating to informants is another.
I really assume that whoever is appointed to this committee will do so in good faith—they'll swear the oath and whatnot—but it does mean that there will be eight more people, their staff, committee staff, and I can keep going on.... In order to be able to serve the committee, these various agencies are going to create secretariats within themselves, which will also have information being shared when it would not necessarily have been the case.
I want to be clear. I'm not talking about general information. I'm talking about very restricted information: informants, military operations, and, in my view, special operating information. The minute you give access to one person, you are in fact giving access to five or six people in this town, just in practical terms.