SPEAKER: Well, I didn't rule out the question in that particular case that was asked. What I said was that I wasn't saying that the member has to be happy with the answer, and taking a point of order to say that he disagrees with the answer—it didn't matter really what the question was, because the question was ruled in. To say that the member was unhappy with the answer is not the case. If there is an allegation that the Minister was inaccurate, and deliberately so, the member knows how that should be taken up. If the member has other evidence that he thinks contradicts it and would cause the Minister to correct his answer, then he could be kind enough either to pass it to the Minister or to table it in the House, and that way it would put more pressure on the Minister to correct his answer, if, in fact, it was inaccurate.