Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll just turn to you so that I'm not distracted, if that's okay.
We saw, over the summer, that Pierre Poilievre had to remove an advertisement because it contained stock footage of Russian fighter jets doing a training mission in Canadian skies, Serbian schoolchildren and homes being built in Slovenia.
Pierre claimed not to know anything about the far-right group, Diagolon, when he spent a lot of time snuggling up with it. He was photographed with it and some of its members in the spring, and he previously denounced them for comments made by their founder about his wife a couple of years ago.
Pierre and his Conservative Party have faced criticism this summer for calling the Holiday Inn lavish and swanky, whereas he hosted a fundraiser there at that same location earlier in January.
We've had members of Parliament in that caucus, such as Michelle Ferreri. She had to delete a tweet after claiming that, in Peterborough, the cost of living crisis has driven parents to traffic their own children. Michelle was found to have posted a doctored Global News report that edited out most of the video because it was critical of her.
There was a weird case of online social media bots that were posing as Pierre Poilievre supporters and trying to boost the Conservative Party's messaging about a rally in northern Ontario.
In recent days, reports have come out about a right-wing Indian media personality calling for the Indian government to wage an information campaign in support of Pierre Poilievre. The FBI has seized a Russian-backed fake news site that posted anti-Trudeau and pro-Poilievre content.
I'm listing all of this, Mr. Chair, because this is exactly what this motion is about. It's about a whole bunch of misinformation and disinformation. It's about a whole bunch of nothingness to delay the work that this committee has put in.
Mr. Chair, you know how passionate I've been about the work on our social media study, which got shelved. You know how passionate I've been about the work on the misinformation and disinformation campaigns that our country has been dealing with—with respect to our elections and with respect to foreign interference—that Mr. René Villemure put forward.
I think that we need to be better. I think that we need to move past the politics and move on to what genuinely helps Canadians with respect to the mandate of this committee, and this is not it.
If we're talking about the specifics of the motion, talking about the Liberal Party hiring or bringing somebody on as a volunteer to provide advice on economics, on the economy, somebody who has significant contribution and expertise on the economy, not just here in Canada but also across the G7, what is the Conservative Party trying to achieve here? Are we trying to malign yet another person by dragging them here before this committee? Are we trying to malign...? What is the objective? Are we trying to move our country's economy forward, or are we not?
In the same breath that the Conservatives have taken this motion with, well, what about the flip of that coin? To my understanding, Jenni Byrne is also in exactly the same scenario as Mark Carney by all the wording of this motion. Why is she not part of this motion? She would be unless this motion is presented to be a partisan hack on what we are trying to make sure, as a collective between all parties: that our country is thriving and that our country is progressing.
I'm really wanting to understand what the crux of this motion is about.
Is it to, one by one, malign and shame anyone who has contact with the Liberal Party, regardless of their expertise, their aptitude or their experience and the wealth of knowledge they can bring to make our country better, or is it just Conservative hack politics? I think we can do a bit better than that.
In the interest of being non-partisan and really exploring what this motion is trying to do, I want to bring in the flip side of that coin and say, “Hey, why don't we bring in Jenni Byrne as well?” If you want to bring in Mark Carney, sure, you guys have your day. He knows how to handle himself, I'm sure. I am not speaking for him, and I don't think any of our members on this committee are. He can speak very well for himself, given his track record over his entire career for being the expert he is.
Let's even the score. If somebody is going to be brought in by a political party to give expert advice on an issue, let's talk about Jenni Byrne and her expert advice on grocery prices. Let's talk about why the Conservatives feel it is necessary to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to grocery prices.
To be fair, I'm happy to support this motion, with an amendment including Jenni Byrne for the same number of hours this motion presents for Mark Carney. I am happy to propose the specific amendment that we can add to this motion.
Again, I would say that Mark Carney has been brought in by the Liberal Party—whether he is paid or not paid is not a question—the same way Jenni Byrne was brought in by a political party. Let's bring them both in and figure out—as I've been saying for many months now, Chair—how we make sure that our rules and regulations ensure there is no conflict of interest, no violation of lobbying and no violation of that public trust that we really should be holding dear to our hearts. How do we ensure that we are talking about policy, not people?
Let's broaden the horizon. Let's talk about both sides of the coin. Let's bring in these people who have been appointed, with whatever expertise they have, for the exact same amount of time the Conservatives are proposing. Let's just have it out.
I'll leave it there, Chair.