I feel I should comment, since this is something that I raised.
This is a result of information and personal anecdotes we've been sharing with the clerk throughout this entire process. I wasn't doing this to make this a fishing expedition for other issues. I've been here for a long time. I wanted us to deal with something that specifically happened at this committee. I certainly don't recall another instance of a study that we've been doing at this committee seeing this type of vitriol.
I certainly know all of us were getting emails and pictures and all those types of things from people. My worry is that if we don't make a statement here, this will continue to proliferate. The signal we'd then be giving is that this is okay, that you can treat people and potential witnesses like this. How are we supposed to invite witnesses to come here and testify when we have sensitive topics to discuss? Certainly animal agriculture is going to be one that is not going to end.
These witnesses, who have very important expertise to share with us, are not going to come here if they don't feel that their testimony is going to be safe and they are going to be anonymous, or if they are otherwise going to be opening themselves to public harassment and intimidation.
That's really why I have us focused on this particular issue at committee in comparison to Bill C-234. We did not have that type of response from people at all. That's why I want this focused.
To Mr. MacGregor's proposal for an amendment, I'm totally fine with having the report come to committee. I still strongly believe that this should be reported to the House. It's quite clear with the information that I've presented to the clerk over the last several weeks that this is an issue that was clearly a breach of privilege. I don't want to make that judgment, I guess, before everyone has a chance to see it.
I'm totally supportive of having the report come to committee first, but I still believe the report should be tabled in the House.