If I could, I will start by referring you, Mr. Chan, and other members, to the document that was circulated some time ago by the committee staff, which highlights four different cases.
What I would say as well, before I get into it, is that each case is always a little different. There's no direct comparison possible easily, because each circumstance is different. The cases that have been found by the House to constitute privilege and were sent to committee include the ones from 2001, which I would say would be the most likely to be akin to the present case.
There are other cases you could consider. Again, they're in the documentation you have. There's one from 2010 involving a private members' business issue, and again in 2009 a government bill, although in that case there was no prima facie finding.
The key element for the committee to consider is whether the committee feels, given the evidence it gathers, whether the right of members to have first access to legislative information was respected. The idea there is for members to be able to perform their duties. The principle is that members ought to have first access to information about bills and that the membership as a whole as well ought to have that first access to that information.
Those are the broad outlines of the issues as I see them. I don't know if that goes where you wanted it to go.