I would just say we probably all remember the timeline of the recent election, which had been concluded by the time this transaction was announced and notified to ISED.
The problem was in the post-election period, when a new government was creating a new cabinet, when departments and agencies were responding to transition briefings and focusing on transition briefings and when new or returning cabinet ministers were being provided with mandate letters. That is the political transition period I'm really talking about.
How does that detract from a national security review? Departments and agencies continue to do their work, but perhaps their attention couldn't be fully paid to this issue. Perhaps they couldn't fully get the attention of cabinet ministers who had not yet been appointed. Perhaps their attention was elsewhere. They were rushing through, I think entirely unnecessarily, an initial 45-day period without giving any thought to a second 45-day period.
I should say, to explain the technicalities to the committee if it's not familiar with them, to engage in a second 45-day period under the Investment Canada Act requires an exchange of letters between the public safety minister and the ISED minister. It involves them in a clear briefing and consideration of the file, which, given that we didn't go into a second 45-day period, may never have taken place.
It had some kind of impact. It's difficult to know what. The timing, at the very least, was unfortunate for the kind of extended scrutiny that this takeover required.