Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Chair, sometimes when there is testimony before a committee that might have trauma sensitivities, there is the option for witnesses to go in camera. I understand that they might not want to, but I would just put that on the table as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I appreciate that, and I do hope that should we get to a point where witnesses do feel that we need to move in camera, there won't be any disagreement on the part of committee members to seek the unanimous consent we would need for that to happen.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner, for sharing that.

Ms. Damoff, I'm going to turn to you to begin with your opening statement. The floor is yours.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today. I apologize in advance if I get emotional.

I'm deeply troubled by the serious implications that increasing harassment and threats have for the safety of MPs and our staff, for the ability of MPs to fulfill our roles and ultimately for the integrity of Parliament and the long-term sustainability of our democracy. While I worked for over 25 years in real estate investment banking, which was a male-dominated industry, and certainly experienced some misogyny and harassment in my previous career, it doesn't come anywhere close to what I've experienced as an MP. The level of threats and misogyny that I'm subject to, both online and in person, is such that I often fear going out in public. That is not a sustainable or healthy way to live.

I've been verbally assaulted in the grocery store in my community, with a man yelling, “[Eff] Trudeau. [Eff] you. You're going to jail for what you've done.” At a Burlington business event, a man aggressively told me to watch my back, and said that I was going to get what was coming to me as he pointed his finger in my face.

The toxic drive for social media likes and clips among elected officials has hindered constructive conversations, exacerbated differences between us and diminished our capacity to show empathy toward each other. In emails, calls and on social media, one of the clearest examples of this degradation of political discourse is the increasing use of a four-letter derogatory term starting with “c”, which I am not comfortable repeating here in Parliament. You know, in all my life prior to becoming an MP, both personally and professionally, I have never been called this word before, but during my time as an MP, it has become completely normalized among the public to use this word to label and degrade me and my fellow women MPs.

Today I want to share with the committee, with Parliament and with Canadians excerpts of communications that I personally have received during my time as an MP through email, by phone and on social media. I also want you to think of my incredible staff, who are being subjected to this abuse on the phone and from reading what people say. This has real, negative consequences for their mental health and for the ability of MPs to continue to hire and retain staff.

I want to be clear that while I will use specific examples of the actions of some Conservative MPs, I do not want to suggest in any way that this reflects all Conservative MPs. In fact, this pin I am wearing today was a gift from a Conservative MP. I have friends across the aisle.

I think it bears mentioning that there are many, many more examples than I have chosen to share with you today, but because the words used are far below the dignity of Parliament, I will not repeat them here.

Some examples include: “I really don't know how you sleazy liberal [c-words] live with yourselves. Good luck in the next election, you peice of shit." "I'm coming after you. That was it. You're done." "How are you in government—you deserve a pig shed you [effing] pos." "We are watching your every move. Nowhere is safe for you. God will make sure you are exposed on judgment day. Judgment is here. The hell fire God has waiting for you will burn you.”

Even following my announcement on May 1 that I would not be re-offering—precisely because of the harassment, misogyny, abuse and explicit threats of violence I received—dozens of hate-filled messages flooded in. For example: "Resign now, you stupid [effing] cow. Don,t wait run and hide libtard [effing] bitch!!!" "Good riddance, [c-word]. Politics, as you call it, is toxic because your party in government is a corrupt, disgusting sack of shit. If you [c-words] had governed like human beings, the country would not hate your corrupt, fascist [c-words]. Do better, you stupid [c-word].”

Lastly, “You're a sad excuse of an MP and worse excuse of a Canadian. May your life be filled with stress and anxiety. May you never know peace in your wretched days. May you live and die alone in a dark, cold place. Burn in hell, [c-word].”

The tone and tenor of public discourse has deteriorated so significantly and to such a degree that I fear the loss of trust in public institutions that we're seeing, driven by misinformation and lies being spread by politicians on social media. I worry about the outcome of this for our democracy.

Members of Parliament must understand that they drive and exacerbate harassment, abuse and threats received by other MPs when they spread misinformation and lies and make personal attacks against other members. This has been my case and the case of many of my colleagues.

One example was in 2018 when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas used her House of Commons budget, which was taxpayer dollars, to send a mailer to every household in my riding with the headline that said, “MP Pam Damoff fails to stand up for victims of rape and sex trafficking”, and “Pam Damoff Chooses ISIS over Women & Girls”. The first line of this claims, “The current government is committed to welcoming ISIS terrorists back to Canada."

We often hear Conservative MPs carelessly and baselessly using terms like “corrupt” and “treason” in Parliament and in their social media posts. Following Conservative MPs Michael Barrett, Michael Cooper, Larry Brock and Damien Kurek accusing government members of the ethics committee of being corrupt, and MP Barrett accusing me personally of being involved in a cover-up, Conservative MPs posted our email addresses on social media and encouraged the public to contact us.

As a result, my staff had to create a misogyny subfolder in my inbox. I will quote from some of the messages that I received as a result: “You are one sleazy [effing] lying [c-word].... enough is enough of you [effing] lying pieces of shit....how do you sleep....I know your ex-husband sleeps well now that he got rid of you....resign from the party....resign from Oakville....you disgusting piece of shit....nice legacy.” “Pathetic losers, you need to go to jail. You bitches are [effed].” “Hey you [effing] traitor....get the [eff] ou of cnanda before wen deal with you properly.”

These are all different messages, by the way. It's not the same one.

Furthermore, “You are a treasonous piece of garbage. You should be in prison for supporting the destruction of our country and people. You are a criminal.” Another one said, “Your beloved boss is going to stand infront on the Nuremberg tribunals, as should all of you. You're disgusting pathetic Satanist-worshipping humans and you're all finished.” And then the last one said, “You are an arrogant, elite, and unhinged beotch! You are going to rot in max security when revolution comes. I suggest you step down now while you can, TRAITOR!”

While I have been the target of the gun lobby for many years and receive far more than just “mean tweets”, as they call them, I want to give another specific example of an MP's comments directly causing an influx of hate through social media, emails and phone calls. During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, Conservative MP Blaine Calkins posted a video accusing me of equating hunters with the Danforth shooter, which I absolutely did not. As a result of his video, some of the threats and abuse that I immediately got were, “You stupid [c-word], it's up to the government to justify taking away legal property, not the person to keep it, and fear is not a justification. I hope and pray to God that you will die a horrible, painful death, and your family too, because you and your genes are a piece of shit and need to be removed from the planet.” “Come on, God, answer my prayer. She is a lie-beral whore and a waste of human skin.” Another one said, “In medieval times, this would be considered treason and it would be off with your head and hung from the gates.” Another one: “Well, look at this lying liberal sack of shit. Go [eff] yourself, Pam, preferably with this semi-automatic assault rifle dildo”, with an accompanying photo that he sent. Then the last one, “Even if you sucked my cock, I wouldn't vote for you.”

While I report explicit threats of violence towards me to police, they often say they don't cross the line for them to do anything. I note that the RCMP commissioner recently said we should look at giving police additional tools in legislation to adequately respond to threats against politicians. I believe he's testifying before the committee, and I look forward to his testimony.

I agree with those arguing that a healthy dose of partisanship and criticism of the government are inherent to this place and have always been core tenets of Parliament and a healthy democracy, but what I have experienced, and what many other parliamentarians and our staff have experienced, does not constitute legitimate criticism of government policy, nor a healthy debate of ideas. I'm deeply worried about our Parliament and our democracy should this continue unabated.

While it may be difficult to control the words and conduct of others, I believe it is our collective responsibility as parliamentarians to set the tone and an example for how we interact and debate with each other, and to rise above personal attacks and hostility.

At minimum, we need to call out inappropriate behaviour in our own political parties, and harassment and abuse by MPs towards other MPs. I am heartened that elected women representatives in Halton recently signed a public pledge to stand up for each other and to call on police to do more to combat abuse and threats towards elected officials.

Parliamentarians are called to conduct our work with civility, compassion and respect: respect for each other, for our position, for our office, for the legislative process and for the institution of Parliament and Canadians.

It is not lost on me the difficult challenges that we face, the issues we have to overcome and divisions we have to heal. However, I believe Canada can represent the best in each of us if we, as parliamentarians, do our part.

I want to, again, thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madam Damoff, for sharing some very difficult experiences with us.

Ms. Khalid, the floor is yours for your opening statement.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee today to speak about the review of the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy.

I apologize in advance if my voice shakes today. It will shake, but it will not be silenced. I will not be bullied. I will not be intimidated. I will continue to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by acknowledging the brave woman sitting beside me on this panel, MP Pam Damoff, who has done so much to bring the issue of harassment and threats to members of Parliament, particularly women, to the forefront of the conversation that is so critically important to speak about right now. It's important because it is literally the core value of our democracy here as Canadians.

Are we able to disagree without being disagreeable? Are we going to save what democracy looks like for our younger generations coming forward?

If we are not able to stop the harassment of each other in the name of partisan politics, we are not going to survive as a democracy. Our next generation is going to be completely disengaged, disenfranchised and will have no trust in democratic institutions at all. I think this is very vital for us to recognize.

I had a class of constituents up in the gallery two weeks ago. They watched question period. When I met with them after they had experienced that, the first question that one of the young girls asked me was if it was always that violent in there. She asked how I could do it and why I do it.

My answer to her was that it's because somebody needs to. We need to make sure that we are having positive, constructive discourse with one another, so that we can represent and support Canadians as they deserve. We are elected, all 338 of us, in our ridings by the people and the communities that live there. We represent them.

Mr. Chair, I am embarrassed by how our conduct is deteriorating the very values that we stand for. I do have a few examples for you today, Mr. Chair.

Have you ever been called a racial slur for just doing your job? Have you been called a terrorist casually, as if it were your name? Have you ever been spat on before?

I have.

Somebody once said to me, "I want to fuck you gently with a chainsaw". Imagine the violence of even the thought of it—to utter those thoughts, make it public and put it on record. How do people feel that they have the entitlement to do that?

Harassment for me has not been new. I've been elected as a Member of Parliament for nine years and it has been from day one.

I will highlight a few of the incidents specific to this topic of MPs harassing each other and creating, for me in particular, life-threatening situations.

In 2017, I had tabled Motion No. 103 in the House. It was a motion to combat all types of systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, in our country. It was an attempt to build bridges between communities.

Unfortunately, a Conservative leadership race was ongoing at the time and the members of that leadership race started to, through the use of alt-right media, first off, legitimize the concept that I was bringing sharia law into the country, and that this was not a non-binding motion, but a first step—a bill. This was quite wrong. It very false and maliciously false.

These emails were circulated across the country. They were used to raise fundraising dollars for Conservative candidates in that Conservative leadership race.

All of that happened because conservative MPs running for leadership felt that this was a plug. The politics of agitation is not helpful to how we conduct ourselves as Canadians and as parliamentarians. We need to put Canadians first and foremost.

As I said, I've received, other than the verbal abuse, death threats, including from a gentleman inviting me to become acquainted with his rifle, and another who told me that I would be hanged, another who released my address on a radio talk show to say, “Go kill her. I would happily film it if you go kill her.”

When MPs target each other on social media, when the politics of agitation gets pushed by right-wing media, we are doing indirectly what we cannot do directly, according to the House of Commons rules. We are bullying and intimidating each other for partisan politics, and that is not fair to Canadians at all. We embarrass ourselves in front of Canadians. We can dance around the antics of social media posts all we want, but the intent of these social media posts, of sending letters like my colleague MP Pam Damoff received in her riding, is harassment, and we need to do something about it.

As I said, many Conservative members—not all of them—including the current Leader of the Opposition, have done similar things to target individual members of Parliament, to bully, to harass and to silence, and that has divided communities, now more than ever, and some communities more than others.

There are real-world consequences when members of Parliament decide to fundraise and to get clicks by dehumanizing others with insults and with attacks, and I am not the only target. Just this past week, we heard from the Sergeant-at-Arms who testified at PROC that the harassment of MPs, especially online, has increased by about 700% to 800%. This is not new, and this should not be normalized.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, there must be room in Canada for people to legitimately criticize their elected representatives, their policies and their positions to further the productive democratic discourse in this country. There must also be room for members of Parliament to engage in discourse, for the opposition to do its job and for the government to do theirs. What we are seeing, however, is the boundaries being blurred with intimidation, harassment and outright threats and violence layered with misogyny against us as parliamentarians, to prevent us from fulfilling our duties to our constituents.

There must be a clear distinction and boundary between legitimate criticism and outright harassment that is made clear in your forthcoming study and report in the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy, specifically between members of Parliament, and specifically when it comes to women and our unique experiences.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, that people are watching. Canadians are watching us, and we need to do better. We need to make sure that there is respect in this place because if we don't respect each other, how can we expect Canadians to respect each other? How can we continue to build bridges amongst each other, and how can we stand for a democracy that is built on respect?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Khalid.

Colleagues, I just want to check with the witnesses quickly.

Given the nature and the sensitivity of the topic, do you feel ready to go right into a line of questioning? Okay.

With that, Ms. Rempel Garner, you will begin our first round with six minutes. The floor is yours.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I want to say that based on personal experience, the type of language you both have been subjected to by members of the public is unacceptable. I think that's something we all can agree on. I think the question now is, how do we move forward?

As a member of the opposition, it is my job to hold the government to account. For me, when I come into the House of Commons sometimes and ask the Prime Minister questions, I will state a fact that's in a report. Then he'll stand up in the House of Commons and say that I'm spreading misinformation. You've both had good suggestions. You've said that we need to allow room for legitimate criticism of the government. But how can we do that when we have a Prime Minister who stands up over and over again—many of the ministry as well—when there is a legitimate concern, and rather than defending the policy, it's just that there's misinformation, or that Conservatives are spreading misinformation? Do you think that also degrades the environment that happens in question period that Ms. Khalid described?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you for the question.

I remember a debate that you and I had, Ms. Rempel Garner, some time ago in a late show. I think it was quite emotional for both of us. We were talking about this very issue and about how we could all rise above.

I think it's incumbent on every single one of us to frame our questions in a way that is respectful, but to also frame answers in a way that's respectful. I feel like I always do try to do that. I'm not going to try to make this partisan about the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, because I really want to talk about how we as individuals can rise above.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On that, I'm not going to get into tu quoque here, like who did what. You didn't name a lot of people. I have not shared my experiences, because I don't want that to be my Google search. I'm not saying that sharing the experience isn't valid, but we need to drive to solutions here.

Number one, I would just respectfully ask that, going back to your caucus, maybe say that when the opposition asks for information, the line that this is misinformation is not productive. That's one.

Two, behind the scenes—I don't want to share my experience publicly—I have actually had scenarios where charges have been laid and somebody has been released on bail immediately and then disappeared. These were death threats. I have to walk around wondering where this person is.

What do you think about bail reform to prevent this? With online harassment, we know that it's not just us. It's every woman in the country, right? The RCMP said that MPs need more protection. If they can't protect me, how do they protect everyone else? We know that women see escalation in this type of violence.

Do you think that the sort of catch-and-release policy that allows people after repeated harassment to just be released on bail, and then in some instances murder or commit violence against women, should be reformed?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

If I may, first and foremost, through you, Chair, I acknowledge the hard work and integrity of Ms. Rempel Garner. I know how much she goes through on a regular basis.

Whether you can share it or not, I acknowledge it. I'm very sympathetic towards it.

I think the study of why we are here today is about the conduct between members of Parliament. I think it would be great if we could provide solutions on that specifically. The one that I had proposed in my opening remarks—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On that, have either of you received or pressed charges for criminal harassment against any other member of Parliament?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

No.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay. So then I think a lot of what I have heard, and where this comes from, is online harassment from the general public, bots— we don't know. How do we get to a solution on that?

Frankly, I am tired of the perpetual story that I've heard for 15 years: How do you live with violence against women in politics? I'm sure you both feel the same way. Let's go to solutions. I am suggesting bail reform. I'd like to get in other areas as well.

There's the fact that on repeated harassment, the government hasn't moved to look at any sort of way where... On repeated harassment, there are no tools for law enforcement to perhaps get the identity of somebody online. It's a slow and onerous process that allows for escalation of violence.

Do you have any solutions on this type of harassment—either bail reform or this—that the committee could consider?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

On that, I have made reports to the police. When I have, on some occasions, I've been asked what I would like the police to do. On other occasions, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I was told that it didn't rise to the level. I do feel that there's a disconnect between what we received....

I do want to make a comment, though, on serial harassers. I know that the member is from Alberta. I'm from Ontario. I will talk about Ontario. It's provincially appointed judges who make bail decisions. Ontario jails are overrun. Judges are hesitant to send people to provincially—not federally—run facilities. It's a complicated issue. We did bring forward a bill on bail reform that was supported by all parties.

I do think that we should focus on what we can do as individuals on MP-to-MP harassment.

There are broader conversations to be had about the criminal justice system in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Rempel Garner and Ms. Damoff.

Colleagues, I am going to be a little bit more generous and flexible in allowing the questions to be asked and the answers to be given to ensure that we respect the sensitivity of the conversation. This will go on both sides of the table, of course. We're going to try to stay tight to our time as best as possible.

With that, Mrs. Romanado, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank my colleagues for being here today and for sharing what they've been going through. I think pretty much every female member of Parliament has been subject to it.

I have two questions.

I just want to preface this. I'm sure you're aware that, currently, the workplace harassment and violence prevention policy of members of the House of Commons does not apply to harassment between members. That is a loophole. Right now, a member of Parliament who is being harassed by another member of Parliament has no venue and no recourse, and we're trying to close that. I want to talk a little bit about that, and I'd like to hear your feedback.

Ms. Damoff, you mentioned that, when you go out, you're concerned for your physical safety. Have you taken steps when you're out at an event for your own safety? Could you describe if you have and and what those would be?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Through you, Chair, yes I have. I appreciate all that the House of Commons has done by offering panic buttons and doing security assessments. Certainly the way my community office operates now is very different from when I was elected in 2015.

For the last two events that I hosted for Canada Day and a family skate, we as MPs have the ability to have a security assessment done. In these cases, they determined that I should have security there. I believe that the rules have changed now, but at the time I had to pay for that out of my office budget. We didn't have any incidents. It was reassuring, though, to know that there was security present at those events.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You both mentioned your online accounts; indeed, we all have our email accounts, our online accounts, our Facebook pages and so on. Often it is parliamentary staff who receive those phone calls and emails and have to respond to them. They see those posts and comments. What impact has that had on your staff?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

It has a significant impact. Yes, there are ways in which staff can rely on mental health services provided by the House of Commons, but how often do they take it? For my own office, I give 10 mental health days, no questions asked, to my staff. Whenever they need to take it, they should. That is an honour system that we have among ourselves.

I've seen some of the things they have had to deal with. I don't check my own social media. I don't monitor it, because it's a lot. My staff do, and it is not fair to them to have to be subjected to all of that.

I think that we need to do better by our staff, whether it's in our constituency offices or on the Hill, to ensure that that their mental health is safe, that we are retaining proper talent and they're not leaving because they've become so disengaged with the world of politics and how nasty it can get.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

MP Khalid, you mentioned something that I'm hearing of for the first time, the politics of agitation. What we heard on Tuesday was that we've seen a lot of hate on social media. A lot of social media sites are not allowing us to report it. When I say "report", I mean report it to the platforms themselves. It's not taken seriously. The Sergeant-at-Arms has said that X or Twitter won't even take calls anymore. I myself have, after sitting in PROC, received a death threat on my social media because of a comment that was made in committee.

Given the fact that our online presence is paid for by taxpayers with respect to whether we're boosting posts and things like that or having social media accounts, it was suggested that perhaps members of Parliament should also have an online code of conduct in terms of, as you said, the politics of agitation, where the member of Parliament may not necessarily be personally attacking you, but the content that they're putting out is put online with the the intent to crank, to get that machine, the Twitter army, going.

What would your recommendations be on how do we how do we tackle this?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

It's a very good question.

You know what, I went through this last week, when a member of the ethics committee, Mr. Brock, tweeted against me. It was a very strange tweet that resulted in agitation. It was deliberate, it was malicious. I like to say that common sense perhaps is not that common, right?

We are expected to be held to a higher standard between ourselves and how we conduct ourselves as members of Parliament, whom we represent and how we represent them.

If we need to start legislating our own conduct, how can we expect Canadians to do better?

Yes, perhaps legislation is in order now. Perhaps a code of conduct needs to be included in members of Parliament's code of conduct going forward.

This is not right.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You are truly courageous, colleagues.

Before I ask a few questions, I want to tell you how ashamed I am. This isn't the first time I've said it: I'm ashamed of us, myself included. I get the feeling we're engaged in a soul-searching exercise. Some of us aren't hearing or else aren't listening to the interpretation, but I do hope we're thinking. We could raise so many points.

The reason I'm so outraged, and “outraged” is the right word, is that, even though most people say that they can't tolerate the situation and that it's unacceptable, it's nevertheless the prevailing situation in our institution today. How can we possibly tolerate it? Allow me to explain. In our soul-searching, we're wondering why we're doing this. Is it for gain or power? Partisanship has a lot to do with it. What is respect?

Today we're discussing harassment, and we've heard words that illustrate what that is. I'm thinking, among other things, of our interpreters, who have had to interpret utterly unacceptable words in French. There's an urgent need for action, and I believe this institution as a whole agrees that's true. However, I still hear remarks that inflame the situation and contribute to the collateral damage, even though we have a right to express ourselves and to be respected.

Ladies, I want to hear what you think about this. Saying words that have an impact on social media is one thing, but the making of death threats is unacceptable.

What behaviour constitutes harassment? Is it considered harassment to refuse to listen to the person who's speaking, and to do so regularly, to roll your eyes when that person speaks, to smile in a contemptuous manner or to position oneself in such a way as to provoke or intimidate that person, who, in many instances, happens to be a woman? Am I the only person experiencing this kind of behaviour, or are you experiencing it too? Words aren't necessarily the only way to harass someone.

I'd like to hear your comments on the subject.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much for that. It's been an honour to both serve with and travel with you and know and appreciate that when the cameras are off, we have good relationships with one another. I remember I bought Michael Barrett a piece of cake for his birthday. I remember Melissa Lantsman brought me a fillet of fish one day, and I was very hungry, and it was pretty late at night. We are capable of having good, strong relationships with each other. When the cameras are off, those relationships absolutely exist. When the cameras are off, we are able to get through committee work and get out consensus reports and work on the important issues.

I think maybe the problem is the camera or the fact that we have the ability to spread so much so fast using social media. I think those are questions that this committee should be asking experts as you continue with this study.