No. It was less than that. It was about $1.98 a hit, but again a ratio that would not be tolerable by any private sector institution in the country.
The Canadian Cultural Observatory, Culturescope, provided an interactive online hub for policy researchers and it was outpaced by other technologies online. Nobody was using it. So we took that $562,000 and we reinvested it into the general pool of resources that we have at Heritage Canada and we spent it on other arts and cultural programming. Even Trade Routes, as Madam Lavallée raised, is a $7-million program. It cost $5 million to deliver $2 million worth of benefits. That's a ratio of ineffectiveness that I think Canadians would want us to shy away from, and so we have.
Another example is the PromArt program, which is another part of the international promotion of the government. The problem with that program, when you put it together with Trade Routes, was the inefficiency of the program. The idea of establishing cultural attachés and embassies around the world is an interesting idea, but the problem with it is that it's very static, and new markets might emerge for different performers and different artists but you'll have old infrastructures in place in different embassies that may or may not fluctuate in terms of their demand for Canadian artists abroad. So we've changed that and we're investing the money elsewhere.
There are all kinds of other examples I have here as well, where money was for lower purposes and redirected into higher-value purposes. Again, the Bloc wants to castigate this as savage cuts. I think not spending $13 million to accomplish something twice isn't a savage cut. I think it's good government.