I am quite prepared to deal with the matter. The hon. member for St. John's West sent the Speaker a lengthy letter outlining the fundamentals of his point and particularly the questions that were asked.
It seems to me that he has an answer that on one day if there was a police investigation there would be no comment on it and on the second day they were unaware of any police investigation. I fail to see how these two answers are contradictory or even necessarily inconsistent.
The member answering the question one day said that it was practice not to comment and the second day said that there was not an investigation of which that person was aware. It seems to me that is the end of the matter.
If the hon. member feels these answers are confusing, he knows he has other remedies. He can always ask further questions or raise the matter in committee when the estimates of that department are under consideration, or at other times when the minister is there. However it seems to me that the answers that were given on their face present no question of ambiguity or constitute any effort on the part of anyone to mislead the House.
In the absence of evidence that these answers are inadequate, wrong or deliberately so, the Chair feels, of course, there is nothing that the Chair can do in respect to this matter. Accordingly, I find there is no question of privilege before the House at this time, and I so rule.