Well, no, but...I wanted to give you a different shot when I received the communication.
Mr. Walsh, I took a look at some of the definitions for breach of privilege, and I think that's what this committee is looking at. It really isn't looking at anything else.
The breach of privilege is an issue, in layman's terms, that impedes the ability of the member of Parliament to perform his or her duties in the context of the expectation of the public that there is an honourable and honest job being done. So when a communication comes out that says, or infers, or implies—I guess the word is “implies”—that this is not in fact the case with a particular member of Parliament, then the member's ability to address his or her duties is therefore impaired.
Is that the way you see this particular definition unfolding?