There are number of issues in what you have said there.
I don't want to comment on intents here, because that's a matter of self-inference as to what was or was not the intent. But it shouldn't happen that, with or without intent, an inference is available from what is said of a kind that reflects unfavourably on the member.
The legal approach is to ask whether that lessens the reputation of the individual in the mind of the reasonable thinking person. That's what the courts say themselves relative to a defamation. Does it lessen the estimation of that person in the mind of a reasonable thinking person? Everyone, of course, is entitled to their reputation in the public sphere—and the private sphere as well.
It depends on what you're saying. It depends on the nature of what is said or what is inferred as to what the impact is upon the individual who is being referred to. Is it of a kind that will make everyone think less of the member to the point where he is impaired in doing his duty, or is it of a kind that might be seen as a criticism that may be unfavourable but is part of the political debate?
In this context, I think you have to think in terms that there could be a political criticism arising in the context of a political debate and be hurtful of the member's position politically, or it could be that plus a personal inference of a kind that causes the member to be seen as disreputable or dishonourable or in some manner not to be trusted or unworthy of consideration in his community or in the House or at committee. Is it a lessening of the regard people have for the member, whether it's other members, or constituents, or private citizens? In other words, whoever reads this, do they think less of the member as a person--not less of him as a Liberal member of Parliament, but less of him as a person--as a result?