I will just repeat that I think this is a very important issue.
I agree with you, Mr. Barlow, that witnesses should not be intimidated. We don't want to see bullying at all. I think the problem with this motion, though, is that we have in here a potential breach of privilege. I don't think we have even established.... You said you thought the privilege of members of Parliament extended to witnesses, but it wasn't very clear on how it extends to them.
I think there are a lot of things involved around this. What are the reports of threats, harassment and intimidation? Again, how are we defining those? What do we think those are?
I'm all for doing some kind of an investigation into this, but I don't know that it's committee business and I don't know that it should be related to the study of Bill C-355. I think it should be broader if this is happening.
When the witness asked to come to committee and have their identity protected, we were told that this type of procedure had been done in other committees before. Certainly there are other examples in other committees of instances of people feeling that they needed to be protected before coming as a witness, and the ability to appear in camera is provided. I'm presuming that is also because of those same considerations of privacy or perhaps of fear of intimidation.
I feel this is an attempt to link this to Bill C-355 in particular, and I don't believe it is an issue that is specific to Bill C-355. I think this has the potential to undermine the bill in some ways.
If you would like to remove the reference to Bill C-355 and make this broader, which I think would address your concerns, I'm more than willing to do that. I just do not want to see this in any way targeting this specific bill.