Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, whether or not this is in the public interest is an interesting question. What has been tabled are obviously legal opinions and on the face of them, they appear to have been prepared to provide points for debate opposing the committee report, which has now been adopted by this House. I would have thought that on the adoption of the report, the item is concluded and this is, in effect, an attempt to re-debate an issue that has been decided by the House. I find that a bit troubling. Whether or not it is in the public interest, I would argue that alone would say that it is not.

I also think it is not in the public interest to table documents that may be used in a legal action against the government. I think it is unseemly to be taking that kind of action before we know just what sort of legal action might be faced in this issue. We had been warned that legal action might be forthcoming and I do not believe that it is in the public interest to either aid or hinder a case before we know what is going to wind up before the courts.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, if you do find that these documents were tabled in the public interest, it also opens up an interesting question. Minister Ootes, for example, has been questioned. There have been numerous requests for him to provide a legal opinion that justifies the clawback of IBAs, for instance. We have always been told that those legal opinions are not available for tabling.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that it is in the public interest for this legal opinion to be tabled, then I would argue that you would have to find that it is in the public interest for all of our legal opinions to be tabled when the government has them so that we all have the benefit of that background knowledge. That background knowledge should not be something that is kept only for one or the other side here. If it is truly in the public interest, it has to be in the interest of all of us to see all the legal opinions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.