Thank you very much, Minister, for being here today and for taking this matter so seriously.
I'd like to go back to some of the things you said about the article itself.
First, there was inaccurate information in the article, and in fact you talked about inconsistencies. With all due respect to my colleague Mr. Reid, I think when you're talking about something as important as the eligibility criteria, it's not likely there was a transcription error, so what was in the bill and what was in the article were actually not the same.
Second, the article focused more on what was not in the bill as opposed to what was in the bill. Even then, I think I heard you say that it was very much around the general principles.
In terms of what you called a “correct guess”, is this information that could easily have been inferred from things that were already public or things that had been shared during the consultation process, prior to the notice period and the tabling of the legislation? This was general enough information that it doesn't prove that anyone who wasn't supposed to actually had the text of the bill.