I have to disagree with that, Mr. Chairman, because it was quite clear. I'm sure you will recall that we dealt with this fairly intensively at committee, where there was a single, short, clear, concise, definitive opinion that said the law had been broken and money had been spent that was not appropriated by Parliament. Subsequent to that, and certainly not the next day, there was another opinion that was long, convoluted, tortuous, to say, “If you look at it from this perspective, that perspective, turn it upside down, twist it around, you can actually justify the position”. Now, this was a clear case of the department providing the opinion that the department wanted, rather than a legal opinion.
This is what I want to know: how often does this happen?