I believe what you're asking is why we redacted it and they did not. We are bound by privacy policies and other policies. As I mentioned earlier, we cannot release commercially sensitive information without the permission of the company. We cannot release private information without the consent of the individual. We as a government rely on the trust of companies, of citizens and of individuals to provide us with their private information, and we safeguard that and follow the laws.
In the case of the Privy Council Office, once we learned that McKinsey was willing to have theirs unredacted, we of course unredacted their information with their consent.
As for the other two pieces of personal information we had redacted, we redacted two signatures related to the contract by public servants, but not the names. It was very transparent who had signed the contract, but the actual signature.... You can appreciate, in light of identity theft and other reasons, why someone would want to protect their signature. Nevertheless, we asked those public servants whether they would be willing to allow us to unredact that to be fully transparent to the committee. They, of course, would have had the ability to say no. Both absolutely said yes right away, and we have unredacted those as well.
So we are left with just those two paragraphs, which we do not believe in any way change the interpretation of the documents or the clarity of the documents.