Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of issues there.
One, you began by referring to a dictionary definition of “contempt”. Dictionaries have tried, since Samuel Johnson's time, to give objective meaning to words, but we all know that many times words are applied in a way outside of the dictionary. “Contempt” means whatever the members of Parliament think it means in a given context, and I wouldn't rely too much on dictionaries. If you think it's contemptuous of your function, it's contemptuous of your function, and that's the end of the debate.
On the matter of standards, I would think that it would be a higher standard on a minister than a private citizen, because if nothing else, on many occasions members of the House are relying on representations from the member in making their vote and their decisions. It could be legislation; it could be another matter. The minister, of course, is the person in the House who has all the information, so you need to depend on the minister to give you the information.