Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The ordinary dictionary definition of “contempt” is that it's “beneath consideration or worthless or deserving of scorn”. It's a disrespect, in this particular case, for Parliament. We have special rules in Parliament that require truthfulness—truthfulness within the four-square concept of truthfulness. We have special privileges that are accorded to members of Parliament. We operate in a public atmosphere, and we expect that all witnesses who come before us are truthful to the point where it may even be adverse to their own interests.
In that standard, I would suggest, sir, that the expectation of a minister to speak truth to Parliament is in fact higher than for a citizen coming and sitting in the same place that you are. We expect the ministers to tell the truth, and to tell the truth completely and fully, because we are impeded in doing our work if in fact we don't get that work done.
So that's the standard I'm inviting you to comment upon. When a minister replies to an order paper question to the member from London North Centre, is that a full and complete answer? Similarly, with the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, is that a full and complete answer? Or are both members left with the impression that this was actually a CIDA decision?
It's not until we actually come to the December 9 point that we find out that in fact CIDA recommended the grant. So up until that point, we all believed it was CIDA's decision to deny the grant. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion to make?
Then we find out on the famous “not” question that within 24 hours she could have cleared the whole thing up and saved herself a whole lot of grief. Then the parliamentary secretary, when he's cited for contempt, says, actually, “I didn't know.” That was part of the press release. That was all part of the entire information that I was given.
So given this very high standard that applies not only to members of the public coming before the Parliament of Canada, but even more so to ministers, isn't it a reasonable conclusion that at least on all four of those points, including in her testimony today, she falls far short of the standard that should be expected for those appearing before a committee or speaking in Parliament?