Mr. Speaker, let me respond very briefly to the further interventions by my hon. colleagues from Scarborough—Guildwood and Ottawa Centre. I have a couple of points on each.
The member for Scarborough—Guildwood seems to suggest there were answers given at committee that were misleading. I suggest they were not. As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, precise answers, clear answers and accurate answers were given to precise questions. Just because the member may not like the answers does not make that a matter of privilege.
In particular, I would point out the one question about the word “not”. The question to the minister was whether she knew who inserted the word “not”, to which she quite accurately and honestly answered, “no”.
Had the member asked yet another question, such as, did the minister instruct someone to insert the word “not”, I am sure the answer would have been in the affirmative, but he did not ask that question. The minister should not be held in contempt because the member opposite did not ask the correct questions.
With respect to my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, when he states that he feels, in his opinion, that he was perhaps deceived, that is a totally subjective interpretation.
The questions were objective in nature. The answers were clear, precise, accurate and honest in their response.
Just because the member feels that he deserved more information, but did not provide questions to elicit that information, does not make this a matter of contempt or a breach of privilege.
I think the facts speak for themselves. I made the government's presentation. Obviously you, Mr. Speaker, will be taking this and other interventions into account. I think all of us in this House look forward to your speedy response to resolve this matter.