I agree. I think the route through the Speaker and effectively through your offices is a good way to go if there's a search warrant or such.
The wording here, I think, does need sharpening up or clarifying, because in referring the matter, you get into an area where an officer of Parliament receives information, for instance, that a crime has been committed. It raises the question, is it that person's public duty to report that matter to the authorities? That would not necessarily mean privileged evidence or information, and as Mr. Walsh says, that's protected by the charter, by rules of evidence. There are all sorts of protections there. Giving it to a Supreme Court judge and having it sealed until that is worked out is something that often happens, for instance, when search warrants are served on lawyers' offices, who are also operating under a privilege.
The key is to have a procedure that's tempered and follows the proper process. We might want to look at your advice on the wording around the matter, to be a little crisper, and maybe what we're really talking about is whether it's Criminal Code breaches or breaches of the law that raise a responsibility on anybody, any citizen, to inform the authorities.