Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also want to come back to the question of inviting survivors and the importance of them choosing whether or not they want to appear before the committee. As we have seen elsewhere, when someone says something to a reporter or blows a whistle, as was the case with Pornhub, it does not necessarily mean that they are willing to make a public statement or be called to testify. Being named is not the same as being called to testify with a motion. I feel the subamendment is to ensure that we can invite other witnesses, because we will have some. You're going to see that some individuals will want to appear before the committee or submit a brief.
I also want to come back to the very good point that Ms. Larouche made with respect to the LGBTQ+ community. That community has experienced even more discrimination, prejudice and abuse, especially in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just think of all the cases we have heard about. I feel it's important to emphasize that. My concern with the original motion is, what will the focus of our study be? In my opinion, we really need to make the survivors our focal point and provide a safe space for them to come forward and talk about their experiences in a setting that is right for them.
Furthermore, our committee has no mandate to conduct investigations into specific cases. That is precisely why those investigations are being conducted by others. The people who do the investigations are very well trained. I don't know what more we can get from someone who is going to have to tell the committee that they can't comment on this or that. However, if we invite the provost marshal overseeing the investigations, we can get all the details that Ms. Alleslev and other members want about protocol and how the investigations are being handled.
So I support the subamendment, which I feel is a friendly one. Ms. Vandenbeld already supports it. I certainly support both amendments, which will help us really focus the motion on the survivors.