Chair, again, respectfully to members, there are rules that are well established. I think the House of Commons does provide training opportunities for members who are interested in digging further into them.
Mr. Nater dealt very well with the one misunderstanding that's at the table. The other issue is that when a question of privilege is raised at committee, it is not for the chair to rule that, yes, privilege was broken. It's for the chair to determine whether or not it's a matter touching on privilege. It's for the committee itself to determine through a privilege motion in the same way that, in the House, when a question is raised, the Speaker does not determine whether there's been a violation of privilege. The Speaker determines whether there is a prima facie case that there's been a violation of privilege, at which point there is a privilege motion that's made.
Members seem to be surprised that it is a considered a matter of privilege when witnesses don't answer questions. There is a massive amount of jurisprudence verifying this. The Winnipeg labs document issue began when a witness refused to answer a question. The issues with Mr. Firth were privilege relating to a failure to answer questions. There was an issue with Minh Doan, where a question of privilege was raised regarding his failure to answer a question. The chair ruled that it was touching on a matter of privilege, although the committee voted against proceeding with the motion.
There are mounds of jurisprudence on this.
I'm not trying to be snarky at all. There's training available. There are documents established. Members can read the books. They can avail themselves of those training opportunities. The rules—