Thank you, Chair.
Well, the premise of Mr. Perkins's question of privilege is his reference to the minister stating that she consulted. For somebody to rule that there was a privilege violation, they would have to understand the thought process that the minister had when she made that comment.
Consulting as a minister is both plural and singular. A minister can reference that they began consulting by simply having the staff of the department that's responsible advise and go through that. Mr. Perkins is leading us to believe that ministers themselves would have to be present and engaging with everybody, knowing that this simply could not be the case.
Any minister would have access to information and be briefed on information using a plurality of the mediums they have access to. I was confident that the minister was providing accurate information. Also, it's important for this committee to note that the minister is a francophone and that in understanding the questioning and giving answers, things sometimes get lost. However, to view that a member's privilege was violated by the minister saying she consulted because a member has pointed out that the minister was not on the ground in the area to talk to people...really? A minister would, as any politician, be valid in indicating that they consulted by using various methods, including being briefed by department personnel and others on exactly what may be happening in an area.
Mr. Chair, I do not feel there was any breach of privilege, but that's not for me to decide; that's for you as a chair. I think it's important to note that it would have to be clear that the minister knowingly provided an erroneous answer and that the minister knew it was erroneous. That's a tall order.
Thank you.