Very briefly, it seems to me that the report doesn't have to be very long. It should focus principally on the statements that the minister made in response to questions from members in this committee, as well as the supporting documents with respect to the addition of the word “not” and the document that has appeared in many newspapers now, and elsewhere. It clearly shows that something was changed.
I think there are some issues there around what was the net effect of that change. It made it look as if officials from CIDA agreed with a decision of the minister that they in fact did not agree with. The subsequent story.... I don't know whether in fact you can do this or not, because you say you can only talk about what's in the committee, but the other reality is that through a series of answers on the order paper, and in other ways, answers were given to the House that were misleading to the House. The net effect is that there are two or three cases where there is an issue with respect to the House having been misled.
I must say, just parenthetically, that I don't think the minister's statement today clears that up. There are apologies that clear the air and there are statements that don't clear the air. I think the minister's statement today fits into the second category.