The president of SIRCO as well as certain members of the board alleged—in fact, we were here at the committee when they did so—that the collective agreement that was signed was improperly signed and that there was substantial evidence of collusion between the members of the union and the people who signed the agreement on behalf of Rights and Democracy.
I see from the document with which you've provided us that there is “no proof of collusion between the union and the management of Rights and Democracy”, and you conclude that “the collective agreement was signed legally and that the three members of the executive committee who signed it had the authority to do so”.
In effect, what you're saying is that those members of the board who testified before the committee that what took place was improper were wrong, and you're also telling us that the president of SIRCO—who told you that it was wrong—was also wrong. Is that not the conclusion?