Chair, I want to assure the committee that I don't want to be argumentative, but I also don't want to leave the impression that I have not responded to the committee's request. I wrote a letter to the committee indicating my willingness and that of my colleagues to come to explain redactions. That request was changed by the committee to an invitation for me to come to discuss cabinet confidences in public disclosure. My understanding is that today I have followed exactly the request of the committee. We can follow up with further information and are happy to do so.
On the issue of what is redacted, we're talking about those redactions that were specifically cabinet confidences. There may very well have been other reasons for the redactions, including, as the member points out, relevance, commercial confidence in some cases—not, I suspect, in this one—and solicitor-client privilege, which is a frequent basis of redactions. No one should think that all of the redactions were made because of a certain cabinet confidence. In fact, it's far from it. The majority of redactions were for other reasons. We can provide, perhaps in writing to the committee, a further elaboration of what those redactions were based on.