As the old-guy conscience on the committee, I want to put it on record that we are looking at a specific issue, which is whether privacy rights were violated. It is not the role of our committee to investigate an adult entertainment industry. If they are complying with the law, we have nothing to say. Our focus is about whether or not failures to protect on issues of consent and non-consent took place.
It is important that we state that we will examine the documents we are requesting in camera. If we believe they are relevant, we will add them to our testimony. To reassure our witnesses about financial information and so on, this is not about naming and shaming. If the information is relevant, and if four different political parties that don't often agree on anything can all agree that it is relevant, then it will be made part of the study. If it's not relevant, the privacy information that is given to us is returned.
It is very important to say that this information will be examined in camera, and then it will be decided whether or not it belongs in the larger study.
Mr. Chair, would that be how we normally address these issues?