Well, not 30 seconds without interruption, Madam Chair.
As I was saying, the motion before us was introduced last week, prior to the witness appearing before us. There's an old Jewish proverb that the judge who decides the case before having heard it is a fool. I hope we're not proven to be fools here today.
Madam Nash suggested in the media this weekend that it was simply a precautionary measure to put this motion before the committee before having heard Mr. Morgan and that she was acting in good faith and could just as easily withdraw the motion. I quite frankly question the veracity of that, having heard her leader today say before this meeting that she was going to “tear Mr. Morgan apart.”
Madam Chair, this is precisely relevant to my argument, that we should be careful. I encourage the opposition members to do their job aggressively, to hold the government to account, and so on, but I would encourage them to do so in a way that does not do permanent damage to the institutions of public service.
We have before us today a man who's been recognized by his peers as the leading business leader in Canada, who is willing to leave, I'm sure, a very pleasant retirement and work in what is probably close to a full-time job for $1 a year.
What we see here today, and I believe this is very significant, Madam Chair, is a 40-year career, reaching the height of Canadian business achievement, being characterized in the most vile terms possible--I think there are three members opposite who used the word “racist”--because of one line--