I'm just struggling with this a bit, Mr. Bosc. I simply wanted to get a sense of this. If you take the March 2001 case, that was a very specific instance where the government actually engaged in the briefing of the media to the exclusion of other members from the opposition. I don't see that necessarily happening in this case.
What I'm also struggling with is this. When I look at the two specific media reports that we are dealing with, again, I don't have any clear evidence that the reporters in question or that the two media outlets in question were actually in possession of the contents of the bill before it had been disclosed to Parliament. Again, what I'm struggling with is the concept of physical possession of the actual document or a discussion about what may or may not be in a bill in advance of the tabling of the bill. I've seen plenty of instances in the past where various governments have been discussing bills that they're proposing to introduce into the House, where they talk about what may or may not be in a particular bill. I don't see that as necessarily being a breach of members' privileges in that particular instance. I could see it being very directly the case if a copy of the bill was in the possession of someone before it had been tabled in Parliament. That's what I'm struggling with. Within the examples that were provided in the paper I'm trying to get to the heart of that particular issue.