We looked at the redactions on the basis of whether they were consistent with the definitions, both with respect to the committee's motion language and then, in November, with the grounds as defined in the access to information legislation.
That's how we looked at them. We said the government was claiming this reason for an exemption, and we asked ourselves whether it would meet that definition. Again, in my view, it's necessary for the committee to accept that ground, but assuming the committee did, the question is, would it be private information? Would it be solicitor-client privilege? In my view, those were applied in a manner consistent with those definitions.