My answer could be very short. I find that they complied with the requirements, that they followed the business rules.
I think if you read my report carefully--and I went to some length on the contracts, on the environmental processes that were followed--you'll see that my conclusion is very clear. You cannot blame them for anything wrong. When the contract was signed in August, there were conditions. The conditions related to the matters that were approved.
There was one that maybe wasn't mentioned. It was from Treasury Board, and it was about the borrowing authority, which was quite important. As well, there were the two other permits.
The environmental assessment proceeded during the summer, and there were discussions not only through the consultant that they had retained but also with the department itself. There were three departments involved, and they themselves were also following. They gave assurances that, in effect, the permits would be changed, and Treasury Board gave assurances as well that the borrowing authority would be changed.
You don't wait until you get the paper. You could proceed on the basis of the formal assurances that are given. They were given in time. People were complaining as if there were something very wrong that happened when the permits were issued. Were they not issued? They were issued.