A legal opinion is there to provide an interpretation. The interpretation of the people who designed the act, who created the act, who privatized Air Canada should have been a priority in forming a legal opinion.
A legal opinion is there to interpret the intention of the legislators. The legislators have publicly said that if they had known that the maintenance facilities would be taken out of the three cities, they would not have privatized Air Canada.
How can you believe a legal opinion is valid without having talked to the people behind that act, the people who wrote that act, to find out what their intention was?