Colleagues—and I say this in the spirit of colleagues, which all of us are—a lot of my career has been spent in dispute resolution, including in Parliament and professionally otherwise. It is immensely possible and happens frequently that when a group of people have conversations--particularly when there are busy agendas--they have a certain idea of what happened. There seems to be agreement in everyone's minds, but people go away with different understandings.
I take very seriously the statements of Mr. Hill, Mr. Lukiwski, and Madam Jennings about their recollections of this, but I think there might be real value in our stepping away from this until we can consider amongst ourselves exactly what happened and identify any particular misunderstanding that might have arisen.
I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that anybody on this committee, or any of our colleagues outside this committee, have acted dishonourably. I'm quite capable of understanding that misunderstandings arise. So I think we should all take a breath and a step back, and consider whether misunderstandings may have arisen and that this point of controversy arises out of those misunderstandings rather than out of any dishonourable behaviour.