Yes, sir, and I'm suggesting to you that, with great respect, that is not up to you to say. This is the second ruling now of the House of Commons. Peter Milliken made the same ruling against the Harper government when the House requested the production of unredacted documents, and both times, the Speaker of the House ruled that it's a matter of fundamental privilege of parliamentarians to receive unredacted documents.
Sir, it's not up to you to determine whether they're redacted. You've been ordered to produce unredacted documents, and by the way, those documents will be redacted for national security, just not by you but by the law clerk.
Now, I want to tell you as well that this committee received a letter from the law clerk, and I want to quote from that. It says: We added that the House and its committees are the appropriate authority to determine whether any reasons for withholding the documents should be accepted or not; and that it was for the Committee to determine whether it was prepared to accept any proposed measures....
...we reminded the government officials that the House’s and its committees’ powers to order the production of records is absolute and unfettered as it constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that supersedes statutory obligations.
Do you disagree with the law clerk when he says that Parliament's privilege supersedes any statutory obligations that you may have?