Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The reality is that I do feel it was improperly censored. A lot of members of this committee feel the same way. It is not up to me or to any member of this committee to voice their opinion. All we can do is inform the Speaker of our consideration around this, and it is up to the Speaker to judge. That's the issue here. We believe we should be referring this matter to the Speaker.
Government members have been stonewalling now for a month, destroying any possibility of having the thorough pre-budget hearings that committee members would like to have engaged in. They are basically stonewalling the progress of the committee.
If government members feel there is a way through this, it is exactly the amendment to the subamendment that I just tabled. If government members really just want to hear from the clerk and the law clerk, then they should amend their own subamendment, allow for the motion of privilege to be voted on and refer it to the Speaker. The Speaker determines—none of us—whether or not there are grounds for a violation of privilege. That's up to the Speaker, elected by all of us.
If government members are saying they have no confidence in the Speaker, I would be very surprised. In fact, I would be stunned that they would be that critical of the officer of Parliament, the Speaker, who we have chosen collectively as members of Parliament. I have confidence in the Speaker. I have confidence in his ruling on this in an independent way based on what the committee refers to him.
If government members really want to proceed to the pre-budget hearings, if government members really have confidence in the Speaker, and if they are saying, also, they'd like to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk, I'm fine with that, of course. They then have to amend their subamendment, pull out the part that kills the motion of privilege, that no longer makes it timely, that no longer allows this committee to report back to the Speaker, and ask the Speaker his opinion on this matter. They should amend it as I've suggested. They have the power to do so, and I hope they do so, rather than continuing to engage in this filibuster, which has stopped the work of the finance committee now for over a month.
They have many different paths they can take to work with the opposition members. They have refused all so far because their intent is to kill the motion of privilege. Their intent is to withdraw the right of the Speaker to rule on this issue. I am in complete disagreement with their approach and I find disingenuous their speeches this evening.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.