I know we have lots of questions on this. Let's face it, the determination of breach of privilege is a serious matter.
I want to go back to an examination, Mr. Walsh, of what you were talking about concerning the objective versus the subjective.
In the case of Mr. Cotler, if we're looking at the veracity of statements in the ten percenters in question, I think without debate—although I'm sure there'll be an attempt at debate here—all of those statements were accurate, and they're a matter of public record.
In the ten percenter of Mr. Stoffer, on the other hand, the statements made were inaccurate. So I think, quite frankly, on an objective basis there can be a case of breach of privilege to Mr. Stoffer, because the ten percenter contained information that was simply not true.
In Mr. Cotler's case, even though the information would be upsetting to him, there is nothing in there that I would contend. I can certainly verify the veracity of all these statements with articles on the public record. So if the statements are objectively true, then it would come down to the subjective. The statements, although highly critical of the Liberal Party, did not name Mr. Cotler personally in any of that literature.
It's your contention that if the committee found on a subjective basis that Mr. Cotler's reputation was harmed, or he found it difficult or was impeded in his ability to do work, this committee could then still find a breach of privilege. Is that accurate?