I would support the spirit of what Mr. Casey is suggesting. I also have no trouble with the idea of not providing the personal information that would identify the employee, despite the fact that, potentially, it could be an employee who did something inappropriate. I'm comfortable with that.
The last part of that amendment deals with medical information. We would have to find a way to indicate that it would be medical information that would identify an individual. The reason I would indicate that is because something like that comes down to a matter of how the department chooses to interpret it.
It could choose to interpret that to mean leaving out anything about the subject of medical assistance in dying, because you could indicate that as medical information. That is the subject matter that we're talking about. It would then, therefore, redact anything that would be useful to this committee. I don't think that was Mr. Casey's intention, but it could be interpreted that way by someone who chose to interpret it that way.
We need to find a clearer way to word that. Perhaps it would be providing further redaction of any information, including medical information that would identify a veteran. I forget the wording he used regarding a Veterans Affairs employee. In that way, it can't be interpreted so broadly that it would leave out any information that could be useful to the committee.