Thank you very much, Chair. I really appreciate that.
I may not speak as eloquently as Mr. Barrett speaks, and I may not have the litigation experience that Mr. Brock has, but one thing I do have, Chair, is decency. I really would not do to my colleagues what my colleagues do to me.
Yesterday, Mr. Barrett posted a clip of me on social media, taking what I was saying completely out of context. I would like, for the record, to reiterate what it was that I was trying to get across.
In this committee, we are tasked with a certain thing. We need to bring it in tighter together. If the Conservatives have allegations to make, let's bring them in here. That's what this motion is about.
However, what I do not appreciate is the dehumanization of members of this committee or of private citizens, as I've seen in the past, who come here and are faced with allegations and outright conjecture. I don't think that is helpful to what we are trying to achieve collectively as a committee.
I've said many times, Chair, that I am willing to work with all of our colleagues on consensus because, ultimately and hopefully, we are all here to make sure that Canadians are well represented and that our democracy is well supported through our parliamentary system. The behaviour of my colleagues, with respect to creating that conjecture and creating false scandals is absolutely not right.
Once again, we see the Conservatives wanting to go on an overboard fishing expedition, and that's what I think this amendment has really been all about. I raised these points yesterday, only to be taken out of context in a two-second clip. Let's not do that to each other.
The Conservatives are proposing a comprehensive order with absolutely no consideration for the privacy or the safety of everyday Canadians. We are obligated, as a committee, to ensure that the people we bring in to this committee have both. Asking an employer to reveal the identities of every single employee the company has ever had is the definition of overboard. It is way too broad of an amendment for us to consider while we're considering this issue at hand. It would include individuals who, perhaps because they left the company, had nothing to do with these text messages, and for what purpose? Why would we make that public?
Yesterday at committee, I raised a legitimate argument about employment law, the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers to protect the privacy of their employees. I would not subject my employees to this kind of.... I don't even know what to call it, Chair.