Earlier you mentioned this morning's appearance by Professor Franks. Oddly enough, you seem ambiguous. Professor Franks seemed satisfied to point out that on the issue of contempt of Parliament, the minister had, to his knowledge, admitted to have misled the House. As lawyers would say, res ipsa loquitur: the facts speak for themselves.
In his ruling the Speaker referred to the minister's statement of February 14, 2011, in which she said: “ If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.“
She acknowledged that some people may have been led to believe that CIDA and her were of the same mind where this matter was concerned. She apologized because that was not the case. As far as Professor Franks was concerned, the issue was clear. He did not say that this was a case of contempt of Parliament, but rather that the minister has misled the House. Yet, you don't seem to be convinced of that. I'd like you to clarify your position for us.