Mr. Chair, I just want to say you're doing a great job up there. I appreciate you.
I'm going to keep going back to this notion of a duty of candour. I know that the courts have established that they have a duty of candour to the courts. I would argue that, as the grand inquisitor of the nation, they have a duty of candour to us. I think that when we were talking about demands for documents, there was a concern. In fact, if I recall the debate correctly, although it was quite some time ago, it was about who would be redacting them and under what auspices, like under what legality they were redacting this information.
I do, however, also appreciate the lack of specificity, given the volume of documents. Maybe it's within the spirit of the movers to allow this motion to be adjourned on debate, and to then return with specificity on which ones we would like to see a response on. I'm not moving this. I'm just speaking out loud.
I note the challenge that with heavily redacted documents, you don't know what you don't know. That is going to be a challenge. I share the frustration around what we received from CSIS and CBSA in this regard.
Through you, could I ask the mover of the motion that question? Would you allow me to do that?