Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's look at clause 14.
Paragraph (a) involves confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, which includes Cabinet. Everyone here agrees on excluding this.
Paragraph (b) involves information about ongoing activities. In the English version, it appears as “information respecting ongoing”. Every witness, aside from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, agreed that the committee did not need such information.
Paragraph (c) concerns witnesses and identity. All witnesses, even the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, said that we did not need information of this nature.
Then, paragraph (d) again concerns identity. The witnesses gave the same answer.
Paragraph (e) uses the words “renseignements qui ont un lien direct avec une enquête en cours” in the French version. The English version reads “ongoing investigation”. Again, almost all witnesses unanimously agreed.
I'd like to make you understand that the government, as we will see a little later, has amendments that will respond to the concerns that have been expressed. Basically, it's important to keep in mind that this is a committee that oversees organizations that gather information and that, from the outset, both ministers promoting this bill have clearly indicated that we also need to find a balance.
I would suggest that the balance has been found. There may be a number of ways to find a balance, but the model we have here finds the balance, and restores it. It may even be perfect a little later after a few more amendments.
I don't think we should adopt this amendment.