Minister, I understand what you are now saying, but you said it was the intent of the director of CSIS that that information be shared with you. That's not what you said on June 1.
Minister, you used very specific language, that the director—that being the director of CSIS—determined that this was not information the minister needed to know. Those were your express words, and that it was an operational decision not to pass that information on to you. That's very different from saying that there was an intent to pass it along to you.
What you're saying now is the opposite of what you said on June 1.
Why did you use that very specific language when you evidently knew that it simply wasn't true based upon what you're saying today?