I was interested in your response to Mr. Poilievre in terms of the definition of being answerable versus an individual actually answering to his or her actions. Going back to your comment about best evidence and looking at the matter of fact, where the committee wanted to go with these witnesses in fact was to have them speak to their actions, speak to information that we have knowledge of in terms of steps they had taken. Let me give you an example in the case of Mr. Togneri, who had in fact ordered the un-release of a report that departmental officials had already released. From our perspective, the committee's perspective, it was important for us to have the witness here to answer to his or her particular actions.
My question is--just to go back to your point on this--am I correct that for a minister to appear before the committee and expect the committee to accept his or her answers in terms of being answerable for his or her exempt staff is not proper, and it is not something that they have the authority to do either?