Thank you.
If we all had the mind-reading skills that Mr. McGuinty expects the chair to have, writing this would be so much simpler. We'd be able to find out whether or not Mr. Abbott had been misled. We could look into his brain, find out those answers, and come back and say, “Based upon our mind-reading skills, we've discovered how he feels.”
We don't have those skills. We rely upon testimony. We rely upon certain rules we have, accepting everything that is said by a member in this place as being truthful.
We don't have him here. We don't have that information, right? So we are relying upon our imaginations to say that he was misled.
Now, in all fairness, this does not say “deliberately misled”, so there's no suggestion, as worded, that it...misled by Minister Oda, or who he was misled by. Nor is there an implication....
Well, there is, of course, an implication a mile wide that it's deliberate, but there's no.... It's not stated overtly that...misled deliberately as opposed to not deliberately.
The point is that “misunderstood“ is a completely legitimate alternative meaning.
Now, given the fact that it's not possible to make an amendment to paragraph 2 that says “misled or misunderstood” without essentially obviating the purpose of paragraph 2, which was to be a list in the “bill of wrongs”, the list of wrongs--