Thank you, Chair.
I was just reading up on how questions of privilege work and the process.
There are a couple things to note. First of all, I want to thank MP Perkins for bringing forward this concern and the concerns being brought forward by associations in his riding. I think if information was not clear or was untruthful, it is important that we talk about it. I'll be honest. I don't feel the minister, quite frankly, answered my questions very well either when I was here, but that's a whole different story.
I have a few questions that I was hoping MP Perkins could answer, and then we can take it from there. Are there any other associations that aren't listed in this motion that the minister could have been referencing? That was the first question that came to mind. The other question is this: Was there a process of trying to receive clarification from the minister on what she was referencing when she said she had done consultation?
The other thing that stands out to me is that, while this is a breach of privilege motion, the motion itself says that there's a “potential breach of privilege”. The two don't coincide for me. Is it a breach of privilege or is it a potential breach of privilege, and does that change our process moving forward? I know the process, if there is a breach of privilege, is that the committee write a letter to be presented to the House, as was being described, but if we don't have actual evidence of that breach of privilege, what is our process moving forward?
It's not that I agree or disagree; I'm just asking for more information. If there isn't evidence of a true breach of privilege, would it be more appropriate for us to, for example, write a letter to the minister asking for answers to the questions and then determine whether there is a breach of privilege based on the minister's response?
I'm just trying to make sure that we're moving forward in the most effective manner to get the answers we need so we can decide as a committee how we want to move forward. However, just to clarify, I do agree with the concerns, and my goal is to have us move forward in the most effective way to bring to light the concerns that MP Perkins has brought to the table today.