I'll take this opportunity to advise Mr. Woodworth as well that we are not making a determination of actual obstruction. We are simply raising the possibility that obstruction has occurred. That occurs in the wording both in the report and in the motion. So it reads “the possibility of a finding of obstruction by the Minister” and then in the motion as “this possible obstruction by the Minister”. There is no actual finding by this committee of obstruction, just the possibility of it.
To answer Mr. Rathgeber, there are really two questions there. The role of the chair may be there in terms of prematurity, but it's not the chair's responsibility to make a finding of either privilege or contempt. Only the Speaker has the authority to do that.
The reason it is being brought here at this point—I think you hadn't come in yet; I already said this—is that the Speaker does not have the ability to make any determination like that without a report from the committee where the alleged breach of privilege was said to have occurred. That is why this report is necessary.
The final point I would make is on why now and the whole question of prematurity. It is very clear from precedent that the requirement for a person alleging a breach of privilege has to be raised at the first possible opportunity. That was today. I can't raise it in the House until I get a report from this committee because the wording you always hear is that the Speaker cannot reach into the committee. The committee has to report out.