Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.
There are a couple of things. One is Mr. Chin's name and the LinkedIn exchange brought up by Mr. Poilievre in the Kielburgers' meeting. This isn't on you. I remember an article going back to last summer in which Mr. Poilievre mentioned this. He subbed in at the last meeting, and he brought this up. Now we are locked in this debate on whether or not to have Mr. Chin come to the committee to testify. I agree that we need to get a confirmation directly from Mr. Chin. I think writing a letter is a good, efficient method and quite effective as well, because that's sort of the final piece that got thrown in from the last meeting, but that information is not new. If it wasn't included in the previous work plan, given that it was old information, I have a tough time understanding the significance of having him come in. That's my first point.
The second point is that I heard about the precedent setting. In my time on this committee, there has been a lot of precedent setting. First we talked about whether or not the Prime Minister's family members should be involved. In the end, their documents were called for and reviewed and there wasn't any substantial new information that we found from that action. I spoke at length against that, because I don't think family members should be brought in. When we run, it's a personal decision. We put ourselves under the microscope of the public in terms of accountability and transparency. That I understand. To me, it's a matter of principle whether or not family members of MPs should be subject to unveiling their own personal privacy and story. We heard earlier about a lot of support, including from me, for Mr. Angus. We have to defend the final line to protect our family members, so that's precedent setting.
Now, on staff, I don't believe there is a tradition of calling on political staff or on the staff of an MP's office just because a name was brought up by an opposition member on the committee questioning something that happened or that was reported on six or seven months ago. I just don't think that is a good thing. I remember that there was a question to Ms. Telford when she showed up at FINA, and she specifically said she was there on behalf of all staff. I think the question was put to Ms. Telford, and she spoke on behalf of staff members, and I think that's enough.
When it comes to this particular question about Mr. Chin's involvement with the WE Charity entity, I think the response we've heard is that clearly he has no involvement with WE Charity. We just need to confirm that, and a formal letter is more than enough to do that.
Again, I feel as though we're going in circles, and now we're deadlocked in this argument triggered by a question that came from Mr. Poilievre in the last meeting, and with some old information. I just don't think that we should waste any more time on calling another witness in. I was under the impression the work plan was to move on to finalize the report.