Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Pam, thank you for your testimony. The comments you read out are absolutely shameful.
I guess where it might be more constructive to spend time is when it comes to member-versus-member harassment. We obviously have a code for sexual harassment. There's no place for that, and that code is rightly in place.
At the same time, though, we have rules in the chamber related to privilege, where we wouldn't have a defamation action that could be brought, for example, because of comments spoken in the House of Commons. We privilege free speech of members in representing their constituents to a very high degree.
How do you see balancing that idea of privilege and the ability to voice concerns and, in some cases, voice them in such a problematic way that it might rise to defamation in the House but is not actionable? How do you see squaring that with a members' code of conduct vis-à-vis members around harassment?