Thanks very much.
I appreciate Mr. Fillmore's comments there. As I see it, the difference between the original amendment that Mr. Fillmore moved and the one Mr. Bachrach just proposed has to do with who is the decider of what is redacted. I would definitely support the move in that direction to take ownership of that on the parliamentary side and away from the bank itself. I think all of us, despite Ms. Jaczek's assertions, understand how the redactions process works, but I think we would all have a little bit more comfort knowing it was the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel doing it. I think 30 days is a reasonable compromise. I think 60 is awfully far off into the future. They say a week can be a lifetime in politics. I can certainly attest to that. The sooner the better. I wouldn't want to have it delayed so long that there would be a risk that we might not ever get them back.
The other point I would make on that is that surely the documents must be readily available. The bank just made this decision. We're not asking it to go back 10 or 15 years into the archives and to send someone down with a flashlight. These should all be readily to it. All we're asking it is to give them to the parliamentary law clerk so the parliamentary law clerk can go through what should and shouldn't be redacted as the translators go through their process. I think 30 days is eminently doable.
With regard to the scope, I might suggest to Mr. Bachrach that maybe we'll have some time to chat, as I know we're coming to the end of our meeting here. Is there a way we could maybe narrow the scope a little bit on the lens that the law clerk would look at this through? I'm looking at examples of how other committees have passed motions whereby documents go to the law clerk and then they kind of give a few filters or a few instructions to the law clerk to protect private information or things like that.
If we give Mr. Fillmore the benefit of the doubt when he says he really doesn't want to put these companies in positions of having opened up their kimono on things they might not ever have expected to go public with, is there a way we can maybe give some guidance to the law clerk? What I don't want to have happen is to say that the law says something is privileged or confidential and so on, and so the law clerk will have to look at that, and there may be information on the bank's side that there's no need to protect, that this committee has no interest in protecting because the bank is a public institution and should be open and public....
Anyway, I'm throwing it over to you, Mr. Bachrach, about the possibility of maybe adding some filters or lenses around what we would be asking the law clerk to base his redactions on.