Thank you.
I don't have the national security concerns that were outlined on this, because, as I said, there is stronger and higher legislation that covers that, with stricter penalties.
However, in terms of non-disclosure agreements and banning them, I'm of two minds. I understand that there could be a legitimate reason for wanting one, but I think that more often than not, non-disclosure agreements are used to silence victims.
I think that the harm outweighs the good. They're often used as a bargaining opportunity. I'm not saying there was any wrongdoing done here, but I'm looking at what Mr. Julian pointed out, in the instances with Hockey Canada, etc.
I think, though, that they are meant to settle things quickly and quietly, and oftentimes, as a result, might resolve an individual person's grievance or complaint but allow for systemic issues to continue.
On the whole, as I said, I can see where there could be opportunities or times when a non-disclosure agreement may be completely legitimate and fine, but I think the potential harm outweighs the rare instances where they'd be used in a way that is fine. I think they often are used to hide systemic issues, and the public, even the agencies themselves, may not fully understand the extent of a problem because of the overuse of non-disclosure agreements.
I will support this amendment for that reason. I can certainly understand both arguments, but ultimately I think the potential harm outweighs the good of having them.