Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Berthelette, you already walked through this with Mr. Watson, but on page 9, paragraphs 5.32, 5.33, and 5.34 talk about the nature of concessions in the sense of whether or not Industry Canada had enough information on those concessions to do an analysis. You seem to indicate that they took the company's word for certain expectations that were met, that they had a basic understanding of what they thought they needed as concessions, felt that was met, and said, okay, we'll advance the loans based on that.
But could they have underestimated or overestimated those concessions, with the lack of analysis? In other words, could there have been more concessions from the unionized side on the health care benefits, with an analysis that wasn't totally complete? Is the suggestion here really about a deficiency of analysis so that you really don't know whether there were enough concessions made or whether there were more concessions made than what they anticipated?
Is that what I'm seeing in those three paragraphs?