Being a good and charitable man, I can help my Conservative colleague resolve this impasse by noting a few parameters of this dispute.
As I remember it, the point was raised that only members of the committee may speak. When his colleague requested the floor, he was not a member. Then my Conservative colleagues began raising points of privilege.
What we understand from a procedural standpoint is that, if this point of privilege is submitted in committee, the committee will have to report it to the House to determine whether it's deemed acceptable. We're very far from doing that.
I also understand that, as a member, I may object to giving the floor to an MP who isn't a voting member. We're only debating something purely hypothetical, since, as an MP member of this committee, I intend to object to allowing an MP who isn't a voting member to have a right to speak. Anyone of the meanest intelligence watching at home will understand that this makes no sense. I don't know whether my colleague is aware that what he's asking us to do is to grant a non-member the right to speak. That can easily be avoided under our procedures.
As a member, I need only say that I oppose that. Furthermore, I don't know whether my colleague knows that the act of raising a point of privilege in committee presupposes that the committee agrees to report the matter. I don't think we'll prepare a report because my Conservative colleagues want to filibuster. It would be patently ridiculous.
Do you agree with me? I think there are other, more elegant ways to filibuster than this. Perhaps we could move on to something else and have a slightly more interesting discussion. Are the parameters that I just outlined to my colleague fine with him? Does he understand what I'm saying?