Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand my colleague is getting a little rattled by the line of questioning because it's going back again to the role of the PMO in this.
So CTV stands by their story. It's a very serious thing when an ambassador for Canada says, “I wasn't quoted”, or “I was misquoted”, or “That's not true”, and CTV stands by the story and Michael Wilson says, “Oh, well, there may have been 'miscommunication'.” That, to me, is diplomatic jive for “I just shot my foot off.”
It's after this that someone produces the memo. The question here is why we are focused on the memo and not on the fact that there's a clear lineup of involvement of a PMO spin doctor and a PMO political appointee who have obviously spoken to the media to try to derail a story that affected the U.S. presidential primary but had to be derailed because it was threatening the credibility of a prime minister in a minority situation.
Why not look at that?