Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we talk about the matter of privilege that was raised, my understanding is that the matter was raised that there was a vote going on while some members were trying to make a point of order, so not all members were aware of the vote going on, and some didn't get to cast their vote.
To raise a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity is a good thing to do. Part of the reason why you're supposed to do that is that justice delayed is justice denied, and it gives an opportunity, in this case around the committee table, not just for the chair but for the committee to respond to what happened and to try to provide a remedy.
In this case, the committee has agreed by unanimous consent to redo the vote that first gave rise to the question of privilege. You may care to return later with a ruling, but the fact that the committee was willing to provide an immediate remedy, which was to return to the vote and do the vote again, I think would be relevant to whatever ruling you may make at a later time.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that, first of all, there was an issue. I'm not saying who was to blame. There was a lot going on. I think it would be useful if members on all sides kept their mouths shut when their colleagues have the floor for a point of order, because sometimes we have Conservatives calling points of order during a point of order being made by one of their very own colleagues. They should give each other the respect of hearing each other out when the other has the floor.
In this case, I would say that the process is working. The question of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity, and that created grounds for an immediate remedy. If we could proceed to take the vote on that clause again, I think we would have addressed the legitimate concern within the question of privilege, and then we should be able to carry on with the business of the committee.