Mr. Speaker, he would do well to continue his French lessons, because I was not making a statement, I was asking a question.
Section 3.6 of the September 29, 1999 agreement provides that if Michaud, the company, its representatives, administrators or shareholders were called to testify or be part of proceedings, the company of the Prime Minister would have to cover the legal and representation costs, for example, if they came before the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
Is this not proof that he had an interest, since it is always to the Prime Minister's advantage that there be no investigation or appearance because his company would pay and he does not want us to hear the full truth about the matter?