Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the member for Guelph for his words. I remember that in 2014, when I was a candidate, I was walking across the street and met him and his wife on Wellington Street, down toward the Confederation Building. It probably meant a lot more to me than it meant to him. Over the years, Lloyd, you've been a wonderful colleague. As I said at the last meeting, I have many wonderful colleagues on both sides of the House.
I thought a lot about this over the weekend, and this is not something I usually do. I don't go home and think about what happened in committee, because I want to go to events, like Boys and Girls Club Day, or visit with constituents. I thought about this a lot over the weekend.
It's nice to see you today, Luc. I haven't seen you at committee in some time. We've served on the health committee in the past.
I was thinking about some of the things I said at the last meeting. To me, words matter. In the House, during question period, someone said something about the Ethics Commissioner reinvestigating or reopening the investigation, but there was no investigation. The Ethics Commissioner did his work and said there was nothing to see here; it didn't warrant opening an investigation. When a new article came out, Mr. Barrett asked the Ethics Commissioner to take another look at it. He said that absolutely he would take another look at it. That's not the same thing as reopening or opening an investigation.
I was thinking about some of the comments we made around the table on Thursday. It's almost like scandal creation. You have somebody who has done everything the Ethics Commissioner has asked for, and the Ethics Commissioner has looked at it and said we're good. As Lloyd said, oftentimes, the Ethics Commissioner's office will come back and say someone is missing this one form, this one bank account or this one piece of paper, or ask if they meant to put something down. Before it's made public, before they sign off on those forms and before they sign off on the work the Ethics Commissioner has looked at, they go over it with a fine-tooth comb.
He went over it. He went over all the information that was presented to him. Because he's the quality guy he is, when he heard new information and was asked by Mr. Barrett to take a look at the new information, he said, “Of course that's what I will do.” He works on facts, not on speculation or on conjecture.
René was here the other day, on Thursday. I wish I had the piece of paper on which I wrote down some of his points. He said this committee is not a court. However, some members of this committee want to act like it is a court. They want to bring someone forward and want to question regular, everyday business people in Canada.
I know what that looks like, and I know the vitriol it will bring upon them. I know the social media feedback they'll get. Most of us have been here for quite some time. We have a thick skin. We're used to being pilloried in social media by people who don't necessarily agree with our points of view, our thoughts or the things we say. However, for an everyday Canadian who works in the business sector, being brought before a committee of Parliament is a daunting thing to go through. Make no mistake. I guarantee you that there aren't going to be friendly questions. They are going to be questions that, in my opinion, border on mean-spiritedness.
I've been going to committees for eight and a half years, and I've seen some pretty horrible incidents. Not many that I've seen are as disappointing as what I saw last Thursday. It's scandal creation, and I don't want to be a part of scandal creation. Hold someone to account, for sure. Bring someone to committee. Bring a minister to committee. I sat on the national defence committee for eight years. We had defence ministers coming every two or three weeks for eight years taking the hard questions. Sometimes it got a little fiery, but the minister's job is to work with committees, present to committees and be available for committees when requested, when demanded or when expected. That's the nature of what we do here. However, we see what happens to a regular Canadian when they're grilled by parliamentarians, who are used to doing this.
On the motion itself, I'll go back to my comment about what was said in the House of Commons during question period last week. The motion says, “considering opening another investigation”. How can I vote for a motion that is factually incorrect? The Ethics Commissioner is not considering opening another investigation. There was no first investigation. There was the report to the Ethics Commissioner filed by the minister and approved by the Ethics Commissioner, and then the opportunity to take a look at what may or may not be new information. Again, words matter.
My friend Mr. Cooper, during his speech last week on Thursday, was talking about the other Randy and then made a comment. He said the other Randy was the Minister of Employment. Then René rightly said that we are not a court. We are not in charge of our own facts, and we can't make our statements that are patently false and misleading. That's something I've seen an awful lot more of lately in the House of Commons and in committees.
I'll go back to the comment I made on scandal creation. Everything has to be a scandal so you can call it a scandal in the House of Commons and push the envelope in the messaging that you want your supporters to believe is the case. Then all of a sudden you get social media anger or frustration being sent your way: “You're full of scandals. There are scandals every day.” It's scandal creation. It's really frustrating and it's not fair. It's below us as parliamentarians.
I was at home on the weekend, and I heard from a few people who happened to tune in and watch a bit of the committee. They asked if it was really getting that bad in the House of Commons. I said that it's absolutely getting that bad in the House of Commons.
It's funny. Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons allows us to say anything we want to say, but it doesn't allow someone to call you out for not being honest and not telling the truth. I'm thinking of Mr. Kurek, who spoke for, I don't know, four hours one day on the British Westminster system. It felt like four hours. Anyway, he gave us a history lesson on the Westminster parliamentary style.
It's getting to the point now where we're hearing politicians cite reasons why they're not going to run again. We have one here in this committee, Pam Damoff, who's just not willing to take the hate any longer. We were doing the misinformation, disinformation and malinformation study, which I think is super fascinating, but it's unfortunate that it's such a prevalent topic. It's unfortunate that it is so prevalent in our world right now. We're seeing AI-developed videos that look real and are not real. Those are things we could be talking about. I've watched many videos people are making with AI that they probably think are funny.
Concerning the NHL playoffs, you see false videos of Connor McDavid saying things like, “Our goalie lost the game for us.” These are pretty provocative, real-looking videos. Of course, he never said it; it's completely manufactured. The public may know or they may not know. I did hear someone say, “Oh my God, did you see that video? Why would Connor McDavid say something like that about his goalie?” He didn't say it. It's not true; it's AI. The technology out there right now can make us all news broadcasters and journalists. It's a scary situation.
When I was on the national defence committee, someone sent me a video that looked so real. The news broadcast looked so real. It said something along the lines of Russia attacking an American ship. It obviously wasn't true, but it was shared 3,000 or 4,000 times on Facebook. This video was not from a real news source but from one that looked pretty slick. You could tell there was money behind it. It's absolutely incredible what we're seeing today, so the misinformation, disinformation and malinformation study is super important. I know René is a big supporter of getting back to it.
The other day, Mr. Chair, you said something that I thought was really funny when you welcomed me in. You said, “Welcome to the shooting fish in a barrel committee.” If it's the nature of the committee, so be it.