Yes, there was, sir. I think the covering letter said “exemption under”, and then there was a series: 19, which is personal information; 20, which is third-party information; 16 is security, and so on and so forth. There was the whole string of exemptions.
And of the 1,500-some pages, if memory serves, I think there were 37 pages that had some typewriting on it. In some cases it was “pages 600 to 900 redacted under section so and so”; that was the nature of it. There was nothing of any significance, except for the front page that defined the purpose of the 1,500 pages.
We paid considerable fees to obtain that, and we waited quite a long time. We put in a complaint, but because of the section 68.1 that is currently before the tribunals we are awaiting a decision from the court before the Information Commissioner can proceed in sifting through this document.
We've been four years waiting on that particular report, which was the audit report done by an external firm of a national reputation. The cost of it was in the 300 figures. It was a substantial expenditure of public funds, which we thought we should have, concerning a computer program called Vision. So far I think it has cost $60-some-odd million.
It's not as if we were trying to pester, as the suggestion might have been at the CBC. We had a legitimate need to know what happened, how that particular project was managed, where the lessons were learned, and so on and so forth. So far we haven't been informed of any of that.