Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think you're procedurally correct in your assessment of the proposed motion.
In any event, we've covered the cabinet confidences and national security, which I think, as Mr. Gerretsen pointed out, cover many of the more heavily redacted versions. Again, for the sake of clarity, the reason that most of those redactions would have taken place is that they are subject to cabinet confidence, but in any event this committee, or I should say the finance committee in the previous session of this Parliament, specifically told the government that it didn't want documents that fell into that category.
The remaining category of redactions is really the only thing that is in dispute at this committee. Redactions were made that the motion suggested ought to have been made by the clerk. However the relevant deputy ministers, in accordance with the legislation they referred to in those transmittal letters, explained why those redactions took place and what efforts they made to obtain consent to divulge information that the statutes bar them from divulging.
For the most part it was personal contact information. Mr. Gerretsen went through at great length, page-by-page to demonstrate that among the redacted documents this committee asked, the redacted parts largely touched on the personal contact details of the independent public servants. Although I know Mr. Gerretsen had some fun during the committee meeting imputing motives in at least one instance, I don't think why someone may have been trying to—