Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for you, Mr. Milliken. I'm a big fan of your work. Your work has come up a couple of times in this room today, in particular in discussions around parliamentary privilege and finding Parliament in contempt.
In that vein and following on the questions of Mr. Kelly, I want to go back to a ruling you made. I believe it was back in 2010, and I'm reading from The Canadian Press here, “Milliken ruled Parliament had a right to order...”. This is in regard to the breach of parliamentary privilege over the Afghan detainee documents. You ruled that Parliament had “a right to order the government in December to produce uncensored documents to members of a special committee examining allegations that detainees transferred to Afghan custody were tortured.” You said that the order was clear and procedurally acceptable, but you acknowledged that it had no provision to protect sensitive information within the material.
Here's where your ruling differed from one that has been referenced recently in this committee, which occurred recently in the House of Commons. You said specifically, during the lengthy ruling, that you called on House leaders, ministers and MPs to find a “workable accommodation” to satisfy all parties “without compromising the security and confidentiality contained”. You made it very clear that you respected and the House respected that confidentiality that was a requirement through other statutes and other laws. You saw the need to encourage members to find accommodation.
In fact recently, when a similar situation happened in front of the House of Commons, the House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, stood up and tried to find accommodation, yet there was no willingness from the other parties to see that. I'm curious as to whether you can comment on why you thought it was so necessary to have that accommodation seen and to find that compromise so that the confidentiality could be protected.