All right.
Let me get back to what is relevant and point out that the decision to move—because he's also wrong in his facts—the decision to discuss and to encourage members to consider the importance of the other matter before us is highly relevant. The word “privilege” isn't mentioned in the original motion, but clearly the whole point of dealing with this is to discuss an item that came up and is highly relevant to us. And the fact that Mr. Szabo doesn't like that doesn't change the fact that it's highly germane to the discussion. We're all entitled to our point of view. I don't want to actually suggest his point of view is wrong per se, but it's a point of view. It's a point of view; it's not the only point of view.
So his idea that because he's raised something with you therefore means you serve as a transmission belt to chastise other members and that he has the de facto chairmanship of this committee has no basis in the procedures of this place.
I would add that I would have been finished earlier had he not continually intervened with his irrelevant and imagined points of order. That being said, actually I have come to the conclusion of my remarks. I think it is relevant that we deal with the item of privilege. It's relevant that we deal with it now. It's relevant that we return immediately to the important matter of this motion from the Liberal Party as soon as we've dealt with that, if it has not been dealt with by means of the consensus that is done through the House at these meetings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.