I can't tell about the past, because I haven't consulted with my predecessors.
But I think the case that went to the Federal Court probably brought to light that there may have been information that was not being shared—and maybe not identified as not being shared. It's like not knowing what you don't know. You get what you think is the relevant material, but if someone has held back information because they believed it was privileged or confidential or would damage an ongoing investigation, you may never see it. The assumption would be that you're getting all the relevant material.
That case, I think, threw light onto the idea that there perhaps is a concern there. The court ruled as a quid pro quo that the RCMP can claim their exemption, but they have to identify that they have information in respect of which they're claiming exemptions. That brought clarity to the problem.