Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I'm listening to the comments by Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper—I listened to the comments from Mr. Genuis, but those were on a different issue. Those were on the National Post story about the indigenous angle—I don't see anything. We've supported this motion in the past or a motion almost exactly like this.
We've had this looked at by the Ethics Commissioner every time that Mr. Barrett has asked for it to go to the Ethics Commissioner. I seem to recall that we asked him one time whether he looks into something when asked by a parliamentarian, and I think he said yes. Obviously, if this committee decides to ask again, he'll look into it again, but I don't see anything in the motion that's new. I didn't hear anything in the debate that was new. It was more to get some clips talking about this and talking about that, but I didn't hear anything new in this.
We've seen all of that stuff. I feel we've seen it all. I don't see any sign of anything new while the minister was a minister. There's talk about things coming out when he wasn't a minister, between 2019 and 2021, but I don't see anything that's come up today that's brand spanking new in this motion, other than asking for some different people on the same topic, and one of those people on the list is already pegged to come to this committee.
I guess I'll continue to listen to the debate and continue to listen to the rationale for why we want to do this yet again. It reminds me of that awesome Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day. I expect, if you bring the same people in for the same questions, you're going to get the same answers, but again, I'll listen to what other members of the committee have to say.