Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the question was put to the witness. I have nothing against your interjecting, but I think the witness was about to respond and it is not for you, Mr. Chairman, to make any assumptions or to direct the debate in an arbitrary fashion.
I feel that my question was legitimate. The witness is the Deputy Minister and he advises the minister. Therefore, he is the one who decides whether or not to inform the minister, and he decides whether or not to censor the report, or what portions to delete. That being the case, he is the right person to answer this question. I would like to know what this person—and we already know that she had the report in hand— did with the report and how far she went with it. Did Ms. Sabourin comply with the act's provisions? When the minister received the report, had it been formally censored? Did the Deputy Minister play a role in all of this? According to the Globe and Mail, other parts of the report were censored as well. Was this done in the Minister's office or in the deputy minister's office? Who decided to give the client more than he bargained for when this document was censored? I think this is a legitimate question, one that deserves an answer. Was there any political interference in this matter? That is why we are here, that is what we want to know, and I think that if we do not ask these questions, we will skirt some of the issues that the committee has with the minister or deputy minister. Who made these decisions and who overstepped his mandate?