Sorry, it is December 9, when the minister was in front of our committee. Thank you.
And this should be reported to the House. Essentially, it is a straightforward ask that the Speaker look at this as a case of privilege. He'll have the other evidence, and that is the evidence that was provided by the minister herself. I wanted to clarify that.
Finally, I have to say that when the parliamentary secretary stood on his feet and acknowledged that he had made a mistake, I got on my feet and acknowledged that he had taken responsibility for his words. The difference here is that we had a minister who decided not to take responsibility.
The comments made today in the House really do not matter. I'm glad she decided to deal with it, pardon the pun, but she did mislead us. And we can't have that. We have a document that suggests a group is going to receive funding, a group that's been in the field for decades, doing good work. It gets before a minister, and one word is put in there. She won't tell us who put the word in, and she won't tell us how the word was inserted. She tells this to this committee. Our job is to hold government to account and to oversee the file. Clearly, this is an abuse of our privileges. If anyone comes before us and says one thing here and then says the exact opposite somewhere else, there's a problem with our privileges being compromised.
Mr. Clerk, this is what I'm asking for: that this be reported to the House; and that the December 9 blues of the testimony of the minister at committee be sent to the Speaker. It's a straightforward case where we've asked that the Speaker rule on that report. I think he will find—but I'll leave it to him—that our privileges were compromised. And I'll leave it with you.