Yes, but it's because you immediately move a motion to say that this is a question of privilege, but at the same time, you say that you didn't have enough time to ask the witness questions. It doesn't make sense. Either we've had enough time to ask questions and determined that we didn't have enough time to answer questions, or we've had enough time to answer questions and we don't trust what the witness said. That's the question. That's your motion, Mr. Perkins. As long as you don't withdraw your motion, I'm definitely going to oppose it.
I think everyone has the right to a trial or the right to come and speak or testify before the committee. We can't immediately judge the situation and say that we don't trust what the former minister said or that he was evasive. You're asking specific questions about things he has nothing to do with. It's quite normal for him not to have an answer. If you ask me what's going on in the Ontario government, I'll definitely tell you that I have no idea and that I'll be evasive, since I'm not part of the Ontario government. That's what the minister is saying: He wasn't involved in the day-to-day decision-making about SDTC.
Even before I would entertain a question of privilege as to how this committee determines whether or not a witness is being truthful or evasive on certain questions, we should have a discussion on setting criteria. What are the criteria for us to determine that? Who makes those decisions? I don't have a framework to determine whether or not a witness is being truthful or evasive. We haven't established the framework.
I mean, the rationale—