I'm assuming that you saw the testimony of Minister Rodriguez when he was in front of our committee. He was asked very clear questions. I found one question was, frankly, embarrassing for him. When Mr. Poilievre said, “What is your response?”, he went from one response to another response to saying that he didn't know the response. Obviously the government sent in substitutions for the actual witnesses, when—we could be very clear—we just want the gaps filled in. They sent a minister who had no idea what he was talking about and who actually gave opposing answers to the same question he was asked by the member of Parliament.
When somebody gives an answer that is the exact opposite of what they have stated previously, is that something that you find contemptuous by your understanding of the definition?