I'll attempt to answer that question.
What I iterated before was that we were working toward very tight timelines that were essentially tied to the fact that these companies in the United States were under bankruptcy protection, and we really had to restructure, under very tight timelines, in terms of how they would emerge from that bankruptcy.
The Canadian and Ontario governments decided it was important to ensure that our interests were protected through those hearings, in terms of how they would restructure. What we required from the companies were restructuring plans that were clear on what was needed for them to be viable and for them to be viable not only in the United States but in Canada.
A number of inadequacies were identified in the restructuring plans that were first identified, which was highlighted in the Auditor General's report. In all the cases, for everything that was highlighted as inadequate, we received sufficient information to make an informed decision that we needed to make to participate in that restructuring.
The other thing that is also important for our being at the table is that one key interest that emerged from the restructuring was that Canada would not be disproportionately affected by the restructured entity. We did secure commitments from both Chrysler and GM on footprint and capital expenditure, as well as research and development in Canada.