So, the question remains, what does the BCSC see as being concerning in the report?  Why does the BCSC not allow for this information to be made public?

 

I quite agree. All those with skin in game and those watching skin in game deserve some respect and should be shown the full details of BCSC objections.

 

I have no trouble accepting that BCSC did right thing questioning Jun28th NR (very proactive IMO) and issuing CTO once the 1000+ ditty of mostly -1 values was submitted in wrapper suggesting it was compliant 43-101. Although August effort certainly said it was complaint 10s of times but failed to show required evidence.

 

Assuming BCSC applies its secretive standards uniformly I do no see any reason to suspect they have changed standards. And since we don't know who reviewed what and who signed off on what, it could well be case that part 1 of report was signed off by QP 1, part 2 was signed off by QP2 and part 3...  Ok, we have been lead to believe that Snowden should be responsible for 100% of the report content but was that really  case. Sure BGM may have hinted at something different but has BGM always done what it said it was going to do?????????

 

So, sure BCSC should reveal all on BGM and in fact on all investigations, certainly in cases where stock is CTO'd as there can be no harm to current share holders.

 

But what could BCSC be so interested in? Maybe Mr. Holland read some Taleb on Selection Bias. Selection bias was huge issue in August technical report and BCSC would be right to drawn line in granite  demanding resolution.  This is not unrelated to drill holes Snowden requested and which we are still apparently waiting for a report on results. Why where those results never shared? Did Snowden drill results confirm selection bias?