Thanks, Chair.
I absolutely agree with the sentiments of this committee. I think it is important for us to have a clear, open, transparent process on how policing is conducted within our country, but I also take note of a number of things that Mr. Sage has said and done—and a number of other witnesses—with respect to public safety and the safety of witnesses and victims.
I am in agreement with the motion presented by Monsieur Garon. I think that we should make some concessions here, such that if matters of public or individual safety or matters of national security exist within the documents we are requesting, they should indeed be redacted.
The second point I'll make on the wording of the motion before us is that we're asking for any “ethics analysis”, which I find is pretty unclear language. I would prefer it if we could request any “charter analysis” that was done, or “constitutional analysis”. I think that makes it a little more clear.
I'd like to hear members' view on the two points I've just outlined.