Yes, it is. Mr. Bains was cut off by Mr. Perkins in answer to a specific question about Ms. Verschuren when he was starting to articulate her long-standing record of public service and contribution, including the fact that she was appointed not only by Mr. Harper but by Mr. Flaherty. That answer is relevant because he was cut off in the course of answering it.
To be of assistance—and I'm almost done, Garnett—in 2010, she was appointed co-chair of the 2012 Governor General's Canadian Leadership Conference, Canada's premier leadership training event, and she was honoured by the Canadian Business Hall of Fame in 2019. Cast criminal aspersions as you like, but definitely do it with parliamentary privilege at your back because it's defamatory outside of the House of Commons. There is no criminal conduct here—on behalf of Ms. Verschuren—and there's a long-standing record of contribution to Canada.
Keep in mind here that, yes, I'll be the first to criticize the conduct of SDTC in relation to its conflicts mess. I'll be the first to criticize the fact that it was following incredibly bad legal advice. I'll be the first to criticize ethics violations where a recusal should have been necessary instead of an abstention. Of course, they should not have bundled approval, where they were considering past conflicts as sufficient. They should have declared continued conflicts. Of course, that is the case. That is why major action has been taken to clean up that mess.
However, to suggest criminal conduct, to then cut off former minister Bains when he's in the midst of answering a question about her character, and to then further claim that your privilege has been violated because questions weren't answered, answers that you previously cut off, is laughable. We can invite Mr. Bains back because my understanding is that his testimony wasn't over.
I'll be voting against a privilege motion because this sets a terrible precedent. If this is a violation of privilege, any witness who comes and doesn't give us an answer we like ends up being in violation of privilege. A violation of privilege is something that we should take very seriously. We should not lower the standard in a laughable partisan way.
The second thing I will say is that I will guarantee you that, if we report this back to the House, it will be dismissed by the Speaker because it is impossible to think that, on such a low standard, which would apply to so many witnesses that we've seen come to this committee and many other committees.... When we get an answer that we don't like, such as, “I do not recall”—and you might not like that answer, but that's an answer, Mr. Perkins—it's certainly not going to be found to be a prima facie violation and breach of privilege.