The reports did not present the same conclusions. I'll therefore repeat my question.
Do you accept the much more serious conclusions made by the Auditor General of Canada and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner? Or do you instead accept the conclusions presented in the reports from Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt and from McCarthy Tétrault, as well as, to a lesser extent, in the final report from Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton? We also know that the findings in the preliminary report submitted in May were slightly more serious.
Which conclusions do you accept?