Separately from that, Professor Cotler in his presentation to the Speaker, in asking for the initial ruling the Speaker eventually gave, said this had “prejudicially affected my ability to function as a member”. I think he was drawing reference to the suggestion, which I think you cited, of a member being found to be “obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions”.
He then stated:
I might add that some of the responses to the flyers in my riding called upon me to leave Parliament...as I had betrayed that community. There could not be a more pernicious and prejudicial fallout from this damaging flyer as that which I have quoted, and I can tender the evidence to you, Mr. Speaker, for the record.
I would assume that it would be incumbent upon him to provide some evidence not of having negative publicity but of being impaired in his ability to function as a member of Parliament.
That raises the question, what does being “obstructed in the performance” of your parliamentary duties actually mean? Is there a definition that has come from previous rulings as to when one is actually obstructed in one's capacity to perform one's duties? That, presumably, would be highly relevant here.