Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to get some clarity. If the issue is about national security, Madam Damoff's amendment suggests that we seek government officials to confirm that national security could be put in jeopardy if this were provided to us. If, in fact, that is confirmed and that is the case, NSICOP would be the appropriate place to send this to, because that committee was established to deal with such matters.
It is my understanding, and perhaps the clerk can confirm, that we have a member of Parliament from each party represented at that committee. Is that not the case? If that's the case, we have to have some faith in our colleagues on that committee to do the due diligence on the work there.
If the issue is not around national security and that was not confirmed by the officials, then there is a real question about it being sent to NSICOP. I would think that's not the appropriate thing to do and we should have the document sent to this committee, having gone through the regular process of redaction, although I note that in the original motion there is no call for redaction of any sort. There is none of the language that normally shows up on cabinet confidentiality, national security issues or privacy redactions that should be vetted by the law clerk. The original motion does not provide for that either.
Given that the amendment is saying it will be subject to confirmation that national security is at issue, that is an important piece. If that confirmation does not come about on Monday, then it puts this issue in a different place, and we should have further discussion about it.