I think it was a little of both. We looked at the analysis that the Department of Finance provided. In 2006, in their strategic environmental assessment, they had done some analysis on probable reductions because of a tax credit. They put it at around 110,000 tonnes. Environment Canada then did a second analysis, and they raised it to 220,000 tonnes. We went back and tried to understand it. We tried to retrace it and then do our own analysis, based on what they had done, and we were unable to do it. Part of that was because the team could not get access to some of Finance Canada's analysis because it was protected under cabinet confidence. So we were not able to determine how robust the analysis of Environment Canada was, because we did not have access to it in the audit.
On February 10th, 2009. See this statement in context.