Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, I read to the committee a motion stating that the committee “order” the organization to submit its list of members. The motion sent to the clerk stated that the committee should submit a “request” to the organization. A request isn't as strong as an order. I gathered that this was an acceptable compromise for the committee.
I must inform everyone around the table that I would have preferred “order”. This term gives us much more strength and certainty. However, I want to work with everyone.
I would also like to add that, if this group fails to comply with the committee's request should the motion be adopted, I plan to move a motion to report this to the House. I think that it would be an unacceptable affront to the committee members if a single organization decides not to submit its list of members. A single organization, whose disruptive and disturbing impact we have observed, chooses not to demonstrate the necessary transparency that everyone else shows. In this situation, one organization is advocating for a model deemed unacceptable by almost all the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The members of this organization don't even dare to speak on their own behalf. When all these people came to the committee to speak on behalf of this organization, and when we saw all these people doing the same thing in the public arena and in the media, they were never active members of this organization. I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of this type of organization.
I have many other things to say. However, above all, I hope that we can reach a reasonable compromise that will satisfy everyone. If the committee members have more to say on the topic, I'm ready to speak more as well.