Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention by my friend across the way today. I find him always to be very upright, and he kept very much to the issue that is before the House in the motion. I appreciate that.
The member finished his speech by talking about the importance of facts, and I totally agree with him. We have to have some commonality of facts, but again, the Speaker has only given a prima facie ruling. I go back to page 2 of the Speaker's ruling, where the Speaker says, “In fact, I have received two reports of the incident”, and then outlines what the incident was. Then further on he says, “based on those reports”.
Reports are important, but they are only initial reports. Oftentimes, for brevity in this place, certain items may not be raised in such a way as to show their importance.
Would the member agree that it is important for our members of Parliament who are on the committee, our peers, to be able to examine the issue further, define all the relevant facts, and ask questions of the authorities and of witnesses? As was stated previously by the Speaker, interfering with a member of Parliament and their privileges of parliamentary access can be a cause to be found in contempt of the House. That is a very serious charge.