No. All I'm going to say is that Mr. Christopherson was reading from the report, and I thought what he was saying was instructive. He was pointing out—to some degree it seemed to be from the wording he was reading—that the report was making light of the privilege to be able to go to the House of Commons particularly when a vote is under way. I just wanted to emphasize, and by no means am I attempting to chastise people here; I'm simply making an observation that I think all who were involved in this should be aware of their responsibility.
The privileges of the House are constitutionalized under section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are constitutionalized as being the same privileges which members of the House in the United Kingdom would enjoy. Those rights specifically include...in fact, the first among them is the right not to be detained on the way to the House, precisely for the purpose of participating in votes. The reason for that was that if you go back to the time of King James I and King Charles I, the king was in the habit of arranging to have people be unable to get to the House in time for critical votes. The fact that there was a vote under way just adds to the importance of the whole problem.
I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm simply observing that this is the nub of what is ultimately the foundational privilege of all privileges, the one with the most ancient history, and it does have constitutional protection.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.