You said in 2002 that when you have a series of facts that “lead you to draw inescapably the conclusion that the member must have known”....
We have a series of facts: we have order paper questions; we have access to information; we have question period; and we have now two appearances before committee. And it's only under almost threat of torture that we actually get some response to very simple questions. Doesn't that lead one to an almost irresistible conclusion that these are constituent elements of contempt, that in fact there was an intention here to mislead the committee, intention to mislead members of the House, and that impairs their ability to function?