Yes, thank you. I will finish answering the question.
This is not a matter of policy differences, of which there can be about Mideast issues. This has to do with a false accusation that the Speaker found as prejudice, prima facie, and breached the privileges of a member of this House. That's why we are before you. As I say, it also breached the privileges of Parliament as an institution with the character of its defamatory accusation targeting specifically the Jews.
What is in issue is not only that the Liberal Party was falsely accused of willingly participating in an anti-Semitic conference—as I said, it was the exact opposite, and all the testimonials that I've said here were that the Liberals participated in combatting anti-Semitism at Durban I. That is the fundamental, normative, and factual distinction.
With respect to the specifics of Mr. Poilievre, relying as he is on John Ivison's article, all relying on one person, Alan Baker, who claimed—and Mr. Ivison repeated Mr. Baker's words—that he was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban, and he, as the head of the Israeli delegation, called upon the Canadian delegation to leave.... As a statement of fact, Mr. Chair, and I say this for the record, number one, Rabbi Melchior was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban. You can Google it and you'll see who was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban. It was not Mr. Baker.
Number two, when Mr. Baker seeks to amend his comments to say he took instructions from Rabbi Melchior, Rabbi Melchior says that he never gave him any instruction to ask the Canadians to leave. On the contrary, they were delighted that the Canadians remained.
Mr. Chair, those are the facts, and nothing can change the facts.