Unfortunately, I cannot answer for Shell, but I can tell you what I witnessed throughout the process.
We were extremely prudent and very much aware of the responsibilities that rested on our shoulders. Indeed, this was something that involved a large number of families. That's the reason why we demanded that Shell not initiate a process without having a clear framework—something we secured on February 16. As soon as we received confirmation that Shell wanted to sell and we had a framework, we began a global search for companies that would be potential candidates. We contacted those companies. We ended up with a far smaller number. We engaged in discussions. Subsequently, we presented those companies to Shell, one after the other. Shell had the right to say whether they were credible or not and whether or not they would sign a confidentiality agreement. They did sign agreements with certain companies.
What followed were of discussions. We organized conference calls in which Shell participated. They involved people in charge of mergers and acquisitions as well as managers responsible for the assets in Montreal. The idea was to answer the legitimate questions of the people making proposals. It was at that point that I had a conversation with Mr. Fortier and made him aware of my concerns.
Buying and selling companies for others is my business. In 25 years, I have learned to recognize a motivated buyer and seller. Yet I had certain doubts, which were baseless. They were doubts based on my experience alone, for what they were worth.
It was in that context that we took advantage of a visit by Mr. Rathweg and Mr. Marion to Mr. Fortier's office in Montreal to make our position absolutely clear, and we didn't beat around the bush. The fact is that we had better things to do. Our role was to act as facilitators, and we respect the fact that they own this asset and if they do not want to sell it, all they have to do is say so. So, that's what we did.