Thanks very much, Chair.
If you want to schedule tomorrow's meeting for that report, I think we can pass it tomorrow, but I leave that to your discretion.
I share the concerns Ms. Damoff has raised. I know “silly season” is upon us. I also know that each and every one of us has very important work to do in our constituencies over the summer. I want to register my concern about the perceived urgency, or the lack thereof, of what we're discussing here—not its importance, its urgency. We leave it in your good hands, Chair, to ensure that we are judicious with how members spend their time over the summer. I, for one, have been away from my constituents for a very long time. I would really like to spend as much time with them as possible and listen to their concerns.
Over the past two meetings, we have been discussing the motion that's been presented. There's obviously a lot of grandstanding, lots of partisan politics being played with it—not to take away from the importance of transparency and what we need to do as the ethics committee. The amendment proposed by Monsieur Villemure, through Monsieur Desilets, is fair. I am willing to support this amendment. I will not propose any further amendments with respect to timing because I trust you, Chair, to have that judiciousness in scheduling the meeting when you do, if you do. I appreciate that.
This amendment really helps take the majority of the partisan nature out of the original motion. It brings the issue in a condensed way to our committee. As Mr. Fisher said, we are not a judiciary. We are not here to cancel people on social media. We are here to look into the specific role of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. If it is the will of the committee, or the majority of the committee, to look at this issue, then so be it.
The majority of our challenge has been to take the partisan politics out of it. I am quite frankly concerned. I have faced a lot of the backlash that comes out of that partisanship. I have seen other witnesses get dragged before this committee and have to deal with a lot of hate and a lot of backlash on social media. I'm also very concerned about who we bring to this committee, and whether the Lobbying Act or the conflict of interest code is applicable to them.
We really need to understand what we are doing here and why we are doing it. Is the minister responsible regardless of what accusations are made and where they're made? Should we be hauling people from industry, private citizens, before the committee and defaming them? I don't think this is fair. We need to be a lot more careful.
I'm looking at and contemplating the amendment. It takes some of the partisan grandstanding out of the motion. We as a committee need to think about how we treat witnesses who come before this committee, and we need to think about what the consequences are when witnesses come before this committee. As committee members, we need to be a lot more judicious and careful in who we bring here and why we bring them, and we should refrain from using private citizens as props for political grandstanding.
I'll park my comments here, Mr. Chair. I'm still mulling over what I'm going to do with the main motion, but I am cautiously accepting of the amendment. I am hoping that I'll hear from some of my opposition colleagues as to where they stand on the issues, the concerns, that have been raised by me and my colleagues with respect to not just the motion but the amendment as well.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.