I appreciate Mr. Kusmierczyk's comments about the amount of work that could be generated from the task of quantifying the number of redactions, but it's so important that we start from a point of understanding that redactions numbering greater than zero are a contempt of Parliament. They're a contempt of what has been ordered of these departments.
The gravity of the situation needs to be driven home. The analysts described how they're scrolling through pages that are all blacked out. As described by the chair, there's 100% unwillingness to co-operate. I think that's important. The number of words versus lines versus pages.... A percentage would be interesting. I think the chair suggested we defer to the analysts in terms of how they define it or break it down. That's not prescribed, but I think it's important we don't just say, “There are some redactions.” There is 100% non-compliance in some cases and, frankly, we had the minister say they were going to strike a balance.
The balance is this: Fully comply with the order or dispute the lawful authority of this committee. I don't believe there is any disagreement, but I think it's very important we have a number and not just a description so the gravity of this is understood. Though the volume of documents is beyond substantial—it's a lot—the number of redactions is beyond unacceptable. I think it's important to quantify that.
I'm sure I've oversold my point, but it's shocking.