Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walsh, I am a relatively new parliamentarian, so I may need some clarification from you.
If, for example, I send a ten percenter to Maurice Vellacott's riding—a ten percenter congratulating Mr. Vellacott for finally being enlightened and now considering abortion as a woman's right to control her own body—he would have the right to say his privilege had been breached, given that he has announced publicly and repeatedly that he has found that abortion is linked to a greater risk of breast cancer. It would be his right to state that. This is similar to the example involving Mr. Stoffer, who publicly stated his beliefs about abolishing the gun registry.
In the case before us, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I can say that this is the first time that I have actually seen the text. We are talking about it, but I am not in a position to determine if the privilege has been breached or not, because I do not know the Liberal Party agenda by heart, and I do not know if these positions are true or false.
Basically, I understand that in order to determine if the committee has the authority to decide whether a privilege has been breached, we would have to listen to many witnesses who would argue that one thing is part of the Liberals' opinions, and the other is not exactly, and so on.
I received a ten percenter last summer—I do not recall which Conservative member sent it to my riding—saying that I was against protecting children because we voted against a Conservative bill. The ten percenter was extremely demagogic in its wording and how it was done. It seemed similar to what I am reading here today, that is, using phrases that have been taken out of context, that are not explained or properly qualified to explain my party's position on a private member's bill.
So in order to prove that I do not oppose the protection of children—on the contrary, I have three children myself and I very much support protecting children and oppose the trafficking of children—I had to explain myself to my constituents. In any case, the mail out was so demagogic that it had no credibility. In fact, it allowed me to have some discussions that helped me understand how the Conservatives go about manipulating public opinion.
In this case, to the best of my knowledge, these phrases were taken out of context and were basically used to cause the public to question the viewpoint of a member who, as we all know, advocates for and is an ardent defender of the Jewish community.
Our role, if I understand correctly, is to gather information on this issue in order to determine whether the facts before us were taken out of context or if they show that Mr. Cotler was unable to carry out his duties as a member of Parliament, because he was harassed or he was pressured by the Jewish community, or if it affected his work. In my opinion, the only way we can fulfill our role is by hearing witnesses. Judging by the witness list we received, we will then be better equipped to reach a decision.
Ultimately, once this work is done and if we find that privilege has been breached, what will happen then? You said you were open to anything. Can you tell me what was the strictest sanction a member of Parliament has ever received for a breach of privilege?
Can you please explain this to me, especially since you have been here a lot longer than me?