Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm very happy to be back here today. I was at the last meeting, which was in camera. We had some good conversations and we voted on a motion.
Before us now is essentially the same motion, but with a prescriptive and very defined list. However, I have noticed that the motion contains some errors. I am not an expert on the titles used in the Canadian Forces, but I'm noticing some errors.
This is understandable because it is difficult to make a list without the help of the clerk and the analysts. They work very hard to find the appropriate witnesses and the appropriate people to appear before the committee. My understanding is that everyone wants to conduct an in-depth study with a feminist and survivor-centred perspective. I think that is what is missing from the discussions elsewhere. Survivors have not had a voice until now. There is a reason why Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor left the military. We know that this is an extremely serious issue. Now is the time to change the culture in any organization. I know that some people here have had these experiences in large organizations. Things don't happen overnight.
I don't think it's a good idea to ask people to testify publicly in a study like this. I don't understand why we would agree to be the vehicle that puts people in the spotlight when it should be their choice. Isn't that the principle behind any study or investigation of sensitive issues?
As everyone knows, we conducted a public study on MindGeek and Pornhub. In that study by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I heard things that I had never heard before and that I didn't even think were possible. We were very sensitive with the invitations. For House committees, the usual practice is to invite people to testify. Some people want to contribute to the discussion. However, when it comes to a topic like this, they should have the choice of whether to testify publicly or not.
The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics gave witnesses the choice of testifying publicly, with or without counsel, or in camera. In the end, the meeting was held in public. We had good discussions. Before the meeting, we received training on how to ask our questions. I think it went well and was very well received. Some changes can be made based on those appearances. That's why we're here, right? We are here to look at the problem, to identify the factors and to make recommendations. I think it has to be survivor-centred.
In my opinion, this is the contribution our committee can make. We can do something really important. So we must not limit our list. Research must be done, and some people will want to testify.
Ms. Mathyssen was very clear that the study must focus on the feminist perspective.
It's important to walk the talk, don't you agree, Ms. Larouche?