Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will certainly be speaking to this subamendment, which I think is a reasonable amendment to be made.
This goes back to the question I raised with this original motion, which I believe was a spurious motion to begin with. It was, as we said the other day, an attempt to sort of change the channel on the electoral fraud scandal that's rocking the government now, in an attempt to find a way to get on to something else. So when you, Madam Chair, turned us down and said this was not the place at the committee, you made a very wise decision. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary decided to ignore that and ignore the very reasonable ruling by the Speaker.
We just need to clarify this so that we understand how this subamendment plays into this. The uncharted waters.... My colleague Mr. Del Mastro, probably without having thought it through, is inadvertently walking our committee one more time down a dead-end road that will leave us looking like a ridiculous committee. So when the Speaker originally ruled on the three issues of privilege—the first issue being the minister's belief that people calling him, outraged about a badly flawed bill, was somehow an abuse of his privilege because it interfered with his staff time—quite clearly the Speaker ruled that was very much not on the table.