Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to be very clear in saying that your ruling indicated that the question raised was related to a matter of privilege but that there has been no ruling made that a violation of privilege has been found. In fact, you made no such ruling. The motion moved by Mr. Dhaliwal was to invite a witness who may have some information related to this, as he was cited in the email provided by Mr. Kmiec, which indicated that the question of privilege was being raised. Having him come before the committee as soon as possible to answer questions related to the question of privilege is I think a wise thing to do and a valid thing to do.
That said, where we are at today is that a violation of privilege has not been established. I don't think there has been one, and I think it is quite plausible that the information provided when citing the witness, Mr. Randall Emery, may well have been gathered from a variety of sources and put together to make it seem like he had received the amendment package outside of receiving it from the clerk as we did.
Getting clarity on that would be useful. However, I just want to reiterate the point that no violation of privilege has been established at this committee; nor do I necessarily believe that all committee members think a violation of privilege has been established.