Chair, as to the first question, I am happy to provide further information. I propose that it be in written form, but that was the offer to the committee, and I'm happy to follow up with further information on that.
With respect to the third question, no, I don't believe that there was differentiation between different departments and public servants with respect to the principles applied to the redactions. That's why we set out the direction to departments at the outset. We've done the same with respect to the current request for documents for the health committee. We've provided direction on what should be included in order to do our very best to meet this monumental task that the House has given us.
With respect to the second question, yes, I'm afraid that it is a fact that if the executive branch were to give all of the documents of cabinet confidence or commercial sensitivity or solicitor-client privilege or national security to the law clerk, it would be, in a sense, waiving that privilege, because the law clerk is a servant of the legislature, not of the executive.
That is not a reflection at all on the law clerk, who is a professional, experienced, highly qualified individual. It's a function of his being a servant of the legislature. The executive has a responsibility to preserve its ability to do its job as the executive, and frequently, that requires not divulging cabinet confidences, solicitor-client privilege or other kinds of information.
Now, we want to be as co-operative in this matter with the law clerk as we can. Meetings have been held, but at the end of the day, this does come down to our system of governance and this dynamic tension between the executive and the legislative branches of government.