Well, I find it rather extraordinary, Mr. Chairman, that they have gone through all kinds of contortions here to try to justify keeping Parliament in the dark. Mr. Pigeon says that “The hallmark of a 'debt' is that it is a claim of sum certain of money. Absent a legally binding and enforceable agreement, how could one ascertain what reasonable amount should be paid?” And yet all through the document, the figure is $23 million or thereabouts.
You knew exactly what you had agreed to. The department knew what it had agreed to. Why is there the big kerfuffle about whether this is a debt and so on? Why was it so important?