I want to get to that.
CSIS, the RCMP and the OPP have testified that there wasn't intelligence to support that a threat to the security of Canada existed, yet, as you've just stated now and you stated at the commission, you received some legal opinion that included a broader interpretation of the Emergencies Act than what the law states is the prescribed threshold.
Can you tell me who determined that this broader interpretation was required? That's the first part.
When was that interpretation asked for? Who wrote that interpretation? When was that interpretation received by you or others who presented it?