But we do know—for example, going back to the gun registry—when they get a legal opinion they don't like, they just go back to get a second legal opinion.
The first legal opinion they got was about two or three paragraphs long—clear and succinct—and said they couldn't do what they wanted to do. They said that wasn't good enough. So they went back and got a 10- or 15-page legal opinion that was convoluted and twisted, to try to justify something that clearly was not appropriate, as the Auditor General pointed out. Maybe they don't want to get into the proper billing system and hours assigned to legal opinions because that's not always on the up and up, as we at the public accounts committee realize.
Moving on to the Department of Foreign Affairs, they are not just our window, they are our face to the world, and they have some problems there. I see that you said, “According to departmental information, 58% of its employees in the management category will be eligible for retirement by 2010.” That's only three years away. Almost 60% of the management cadre of Foreign Affairs could be gone in about three or four years, and our face to the world will become inexperienced at best.
What are they saying about this?