Thank you.
I think the first item that should be dealt with by those who will be drafting the report is what constitutes contempt. I would suggest that as good a definition as any is found in Halsbury's Laws of England, on page 608:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency to produce such a result as may be treated as contempt even though there is not a precedent for the offence.
I think that was backed up by Mr. Walsh, who said that contempt is what the committee says it is, effectively.
I think that's the framework with which we need to deal.
The second thing is what needs to be established to prove contempt. I think there are two points there. The first is that the statement must have in fact been “misleading”. The second point is that “it must be established that the Member making the statement knew”--or, I would suggest, ought to have known--“that the statement was incorrect”, and in making it, “the Member intended to mislead the House”.
I think that's the procedural framework, if you will, under which we should cast our deliberations. I would argue essentially almost 17 points, which.... I'm sure my colleagues will be thrilled to listen to me pontificate for 17 points; nevertheless, I'll try to be as brief as I can.
The first point has to do with--