Thank you very much.
I first want to mention that with regard to process, I think it's taking advantage of Mrs. Vignola's goodwill for us to have stayed the conversation around her important motion as well. Nonetheless, we're here.
I also want to comment again on the treatment of our public servants when they come before us at this very important committee. It's been a disturbing trend. We've seen character assassinations and accusations that are, I think, deeply concerning and offensive to those who are the subject of those accusations. I'm very conscious of how previous public servants and their lives have been affected by such appearances at this committee. It's unacceptable and I think unbecoming of us as parliamentarians.
On the motion specifically, we do know that the minister is coming on November 5 to answer our questions. We know that the minister is absolutely accountable to their staff. We certainly want to hear from anyone who can shed light on this conversation.
We've already requested additional electronic communications that may perhaps shed even more light on the conversation we're having today, which is great. What we're all trying to achieve here is to get to the bottom of what happened.
I'll also take issue with Mr. Brock's characterization, saying that the consul general had “his hands all over the acquisition”. We've heard repeatedly that this is actually not the case. We need to be really careful about the words we're using in this space. If we actually do want to get down to the truth about what happened, making those assumptions and generalizations is really unfair. I don't think it leads us to finding out what the truth is in this situation. We should all just be really careful and cautious.
Again, we want to hear from those who have information pertinent to this discussion, absolutely, but what is the proper channel? What we really need to discuss here is the proper process.
I have deep concerns about this, and I'd just like to register that.