Mr. Généreux, thank you again.
Chair, I'll answer as quickly as I can.
I believe that the political transition period we were in probably had an impact on the kind of attention that we should have been giving, particularly at the political level, to this transaction.
I would also say that one of the reasons I think we need to do more national security reviews, or at least do reviews of sensitive acquisitions using the full 90-day period provided by the Investment Canada Act, is that the acquisition of information and intelligence, the analysis of it, the consulting with allies and coming up with proper judgments is a difficult, complex and time-consuming business. We need to have the resources and the talent to do that business, and we need to give it time.
Really, to be honest, I'm afraid I'm dumbfounded by the fact that the government was so confident about its conclusions within that 45-day period from the original announcement of the acquisition in October through to early December that it felt it didn't even have to do any more. I think we just have to reflect on this acquisition and not rush to judgment on these matters, which clearly involve a strategic issue, sensitivities and Canada's future economic security. We must take our time to do this, and I'm afraid we didn't take the proper time.
I'm not trying to prejudge what a national security review conclusion might have been. I'm just saying we needed to take more time and give this much more serious attention than was done, and the kinds of explanations that have been offered by the government to date I find wholly unsatisfactory and very narrowly focused.