Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to respond to a couple of comments that were made.
Ms Kwan is right that the chair has not ruled on the question of privilege, but that's simply a correct description of the jurisdiction of the chair. The chair does not rule on questions of privilege. The chair has made a ruling that is in effect as far as the chair can go in acknowledging the seriousness of this matter and its relation to privilege.
What is appropriate, then, is for the committee to forward the issue onward in a timely manner for a further adjudication determination. I think that needs to happen quickly. The committee needs to proceed in a way that accords with a recognition of the seriousness of the issue. That means, as the amendment says, having the hearing for witnesses right away. As we're going to propose, it means preparing the report and allowing the committee to move on.
The issue is that one can't simply go back to the issue from which the privilege question arose. It's legitimate for a member to have the opinion that there wasn't a violation of privilege. That's an opinion. That's an opinion I disagree with, but it's an opinion.
The point is, given the recognition of the seriousness of this, we can't go back to that item until the matter is considered and resolved. That's why I think it's important to first adopt the motions we need to adopt today, to hear from the witness, to proceed with the report and then to allow the ruling to happen. This is the flow that needs to take place.
Again, it's an intricate piece when you come to privilege questions, but everybody has a role to play. The Speaker would make a finding of a prima facie case. However, even then, if the Speaker makes that finding, that typically refers it to a committee.
All of these are steps in the process. I think making that happen quickly, in the proper order, is what we're saying needs to happen.
Thank you.