In the first part of the subamendment that my colleague has put forward, if folks can get their stuff together in 30 days, I have no issue with that. This is not a question of trying to stall; it's quite the opposite. I would also very much like to see these materials. I think most of us would. If we can agree that we request 30 days—and we have to be understanding if folks come back and say they need an extra week or two, or whatever—I think we can live with that.
My friend opposite has raised the issue around whether we want to include this language about the law itself, particularly what happens in the case of this ATIP language. I would just take us back to a previous conversation where we were dealing with the issues of the researchers and what happened when we decided we were going to take a certain path in terms of the nature of the disaggregated, anonymized route. When we went down that road, we ended up very quickly having to come back and reflect on the decision we had made as a team, and we came to a different conclusion.
I'm concerned about starting down the road saying we want 11,000 individual responses that people gave, without any guardrails. Just to be clear, if it's within the bounds of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and if all of that can be given, then I think it should absolutely be given to us and should be there. However, we are also, as parliamentarians, bound by that legislation.
The question is this: How do we make sure that we don't put ourselves in a situation where, in a few days or a week, we get an opinion back from somebody who tells us that what we've proposed doesn't make sense and, more importantly, that this is outside the bounds of what is allowed?
When I made that amendment, the intention was not to try to prevent the committee from getting information. It was quite the opposite. I want to make sure that we don't get into a situation where we have to relitigate what we end up being able to put out. That is a concern for me. Thus far on this study, there's a lot of common interest in understanding not only what comes out, but also how the sausage is made, what some of the pieces are around that—the types of submissions we had, the lines of thinking and the lines of inquiry that people put forward—what went into it and how that compares to what comes out the other end when the report is released. I think we're all very interested in how that's going to look.
There's always a question in this place. My colleague from the Bloc is concerned about making sure that there's an accurate reflection of the testimony and what was received. To my mind, a lot of people have given input to this study, to how the strategy is going to look. What comes out the other end through the consultation should take into account all of those different pieces.
I would submit that, as a group, we should want to avoid people cherry-picking certain lines and wondering why those particular lines didn't make their way in, which is fine. The question is, do we try to figure out who the heck said that and interrogate that person to find their relationship to what did or didn't go down in the production of the study?
All this to say, with the spirit of what is being asked and what my Conservative and Bloc colleagues want to do, I think we are very much there. It's not a question of the spirit of what we're trying to do. How do we put the language around this so that the guardrails are there from a protection standpoint? That was the whole intention here. If we can find a different way to get there and to understand that, I think we're totally fine. We have to be mindful, though, of where this can go if we don't end up putting in something that reflects our understanding that we are also bound by the law and jurisdiction in all of this.
Just to be clear, a lot of this is available online right now. I don't know if we want to take a second.... This may be something we can do. We can take a minute, if the member wants to look at it. I guess they may be letting him know that everything that is available is now online. Perhaps he can take a look and see if something is missing. Then we can amend the motion to reflect what my colleague doesn't see that may be helpful to him.
This stuff has just been released, I understand. I'm just getting a message that all of it is now online.
I recommend that we take a minute to let Mr. Blanchette-Joncas see if what he's looking for is actually there. If it's not, let's amend the motion to reflect that, because it may be a moot point. It may save us a whole bunch of hassle, save the department a whole bunch of hassle and let us get back to our work.
If I may, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, I will present—