That's very helpful.
In this instance, when it comes to Mr. O'Toole's briefing, did you suspect, or did you know? What was he briefed on?
We know what he understood, and then I think this is exactly why.... For all of us, it is educational as to how these briefings should be provided and how it should be explained to members of Parliament why you believe certain intel to be so; or maybe it's an absolute evidence that, ah ha, we have backup to prove that this is where it's coming from. Based on the testimony that we've received from Mr. Chong, the briefings that were given to him were at a very high level. There wasn't a clear understanding or a clear picture of what was explained to him in some of the briefings he had received before the news reports came out.
In the case of Mr. O'Toole, we know what he believes, but did CSIS inform him that it believed that was the origin of the information, or was he informed that you had evidence, solid evidence that this was where it was coming from? Therefore, could David Johnston's conclusion, in your opinion, still be correct?