Yes, and the Speaker rejected that argument. In taking your argument into account, this is what he said, and this is what needs to be clarified because both you and Ms. O'Connell, I believe, with great respect, are misrepresenting this issue of national security. This is what the order of the House says:
...the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation....
Sir, there is no issue of the documents being redacted for national security. The question is whether you believe that it's your right to do it, or whether you have to comply with the order of the House, as the Speaker has ruled, to have the law clerk do that. Is that not correct?