Well, Mr. Poilievre, the question had to do with interpretation. You're quite right, the question was asked on four different occasions. The witness apparently has no interpretation to give. He has nothing to add to the e-mail. The e-mail was addressed to him from Mr. Roy, and the response was from him back to Mr. Roy. The wording in the e-mails speaks for itself. It's unfortunate the witness didn't feel that he had anything to add to the interpretation, but certainly the committee is well within its rights to take the meaning of the e-mail.
It's unfortunate that the witness is not giving an answer. I'm not going to direct him to answer the question, but I find it very disturbing and unfortunate.
Ms. Sgro.