Perhaps I can add something to that. I think using open sources is a very difficult way of adjudicating who might be allowed into Parliament. We all know people we disagree with or who we find disagreeable. Using open sources, which are polluted with misinformation, is not a good way of keeping someone in or out. I would be very upset if.... I mean, I could see people looking me up and saying, “No, we don't want him.” Some people disagree with the opinions I've taken on a number of issues, so am I acceptable?
Again I say, could Mr. Hunka, who has never been charged with anything, come back tomorrow as one of your guests? You're suggesting that he can't. Why not? What has he done? The vetting process....
My colleague just whispered in my ear “Waffen-SS”. Read the Deschênes commission report. I think you were a teenager when I was standing in front of Deschênes. If you read the report, he addresses the issue of the Waffen-SS in Nuremberg, which did not mention the Galicia Division—not specifically, at any rate.
I think we need to understand that Parliament has to hear disagreeable opinions. It has to hear from people you may find disagreeable. That's your job. Then you make your decisions. I agree with my colleague: What is said matters, and what you decide matters, but you have to hear and you have to read.