I appreciate the clarification of that. What I'm struggling with is simply this: the first step in any determination of a breach of privilege or a non-breach is the Speaker's ruling of its prima facie character, which just says, basically, that there is some indication that something might have happened; then it's up to the committee to determine after that.
My concern--I think it could happen to any one of us here--is that we are obviously in a profession that encourages partisan debate and partisan rhetoric at times. We're certainly all guilty of it, if you want to frame it as such. But the problem I have and the concern I have is that if any member of Parliament sends out a householder that is completely accurate in its content into another member's riding, and that member says, “Look, this has embarrassed me. My constituents are now asking what the heck my party is doing, and if this is true. It's hurt my ability to do my job.”
I mean, any one of us could make that argument, and in fact a committee could say, yes, right, there's a breach of privilege.
Then where's that line? It would never happen in a campaign. We have determined that. So how are we supposed to guide ourselves?
Frankly, I'd like to come back to you on this, Mr. Walsh, because I think this is something that the committee needs to take very seriously. If accurate comments are made, and yet you could still be found in breach of privilege--