Quite frankly, you've given an explanation at this table today that I find quite satisfactory. I think it's reasonable. I think it's fair to say that there's some ambiguity as to the words that were used. We're not even sure whether the word “issue” was used. I'm not sure there's testimony that Mr. Preuss actually used the word “issue”.
When we look at some of this information—we're looking at Mr. Holbrook having used the word “problem”—and given the fact that there's some ambiguity, a suggestion that there was contempt of Parliament is to me far-fetched, Mr. Chair.
Again, I just want you, for the record, to state whether in fact it was ever your intention to influence the testimony an employee of this government would give to this committee.