Actually, as we mentioned previously when we were debating the motion, the department had already agreed to a request to provide us with that information last June. Therefore, I don't understand why there are problems today except that all of a sudden, public attention has been drawn to this. Last June—it may not have been in the exact form of the wording of the motion—we had requested these contracts. So there wasn't supposed to be a problem because at that time, the deputy minister had agreed to provide us with the information.
On October 28th, 2010. See this statement in context.