Thank you, Mr. Motz.
I'm going to speak now.
I understand Mr. Virani's concern. However, I agree 100% with what Mr. Green and Mr. Motz have said. I think we are here to shed some light on the situation. We can't tell people, even before getting an objection to the production of a document or some information, that in reality they won't need to object because we are going to censor ourselves. I think it would be paradoxical to go about it that way.
Mr. Motz's motion refers to an order to produce two things: the security assessments and the legal opinions that the government relied on in determining certain things, among them:
(d) the Emergency Measures Regulations were compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the analysis relied upon by the Minister of Justice in discharging his responsibilities ...
It refers to an analysis relied on, and not necessarily a legal opinion. It seems that an analysis was done, or should have been done, at least, and it's that analysis that the motion is requesting.
If, after learning of this motion, the minister tells us that he can provide that analysis, but not the legal opinion it is based on, because that is covered by solicitor-client privilege, then we will have to decide whether we agree or we want something else.
For the moment, we are asking the minister to send us the security assessments and legal opinions he used in doing the analysis of his responsibilities under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. That seems to be minimal in the context of our work.
That is what I wanted to say.
I now turn the floor over to Mr. Virani.