Thank you, Chair.
I thank my colleague for the motion. I think it prevents us from going down a road that we do not want to go down with regard to parliamentary precedent and law.
When Mr. McKay first read his motion to me, I was actually shocked. He talked about an act or an omission that obstructs the House. I guess the researchers searched high and low to find this definition. They ended up in New Zealand, which has a vibrant Parliament. I'm not saying it's not a good decision, except he changed the decision.
We heard the other day from expert witnesses. We heard last week that it's Parliament that defines what contempt is. There is no section anywhere, no statute you can go to that says to every parliament in the world, “Here is contempt. Here it is. It's all clear for you.” In fact what we're doing today is defining it.
But what he brought forward was an essential element of contempt, which is that the person being accused of contempt knew--