First of all, it's good to be back at this committee. I'm sorry that it's under some less than ideal circumstances, given that we're talking about a privilege issue.
I was just going to say that parliamentary privilege refers to the privileges that allow members of Parliament to do their jobs. If there has been a violation of privilege, then that violation of privilege is impeding members' ability to do their jobs. That's what we're considering in the context of this privilege debate.
It would seem odd to me to go on with the item of business in which the violation of privilege occurred and put aside the privilege violation, because that violation of privilege materially impacted, or could have materially impacted, the proceedings that were happening. That's why it's a breach of privilege. If it is a breach of privilege, then it matters to the considerations under way. If it matters to the considerations under way, then you have to deal with the privilege issue. You can't just revert back to the considerations under way as if nothing had happened.
That said, I think we're probably all agreeing on this amendment. I just want to make the broader point in the context of the discussion. I support the amendment to have the witness come right away.
The point is that, based on your ruling, it seems to me it's a given that there has been an impact, or there could have been an impact, on the clause-by-clause proceedings. That means we have to attend to the privilege issue as a priority because that will help us contextualize other steps the committee needs to take on the issue from which the privilege point arose.