I don't see that there's a point of order there, but I will remind members that I only saw reference to political interference extremely peripherally in that question. I think the question was directed to the department. Of course, when Mr. Martin said “you”, he didn't mean Mr. Edwards personally.
This question was put to Madame Sabourin, and my recollection is that Madame Sabourin did agree to provide us with an explanation as to why—as I recall it, and we'd have to check the transcripts—in certain circumstances torture is included in some of the reports and not in the others, or words to that effect. So I think Mr. Martin's question was simply how is it that the references to torture are in some but not all references...? To put it another way, in the document that we have there's nothing that talks about torture, and he wants to know why that is. I suppose there are at least two reasons. One of them could be that the report contained no reference to torture because there's no further torture in Afghanistan. I think that would be a stretch, but that's at least a possibility. That's why there would be no reference to torture. If there is reference to torture, the deputy minister has already said he's not going to talk about it because that's behind the black.
In any event, we're right on five minutes for Mr. Martin, but I do have another point of order from Madame Lavallée.