When we are talking about the intention that set the orders of the House that would give us parameters, we would enter into this with the understanding that it was a retrospective contemplation of the orders, and thus would require information that may not have been available at the debate. It would be safe to say, given the prescriptive nature of our being sworn in to see certain documents that might not be made available to the public, that in our consideration of the proportionality of the orders carried out under the act, we would be doing it with a deeper contemplation than would have been had in the House in debate. Is that safe to say as well?
On March 29th, 2022. See this statement in context.