I'm thinking through how this possibly happened. You have Hockey Canada, and their goal is to win hockey, so they pick the best guy to be captain of their team. There are responsibilities and decisions that he has to make. They picked a captain for a reason. You can bet that they discussed this, because hockey affects les francophones et les anglophones. I'm sure Hockey Canada had this discussion about the impact it would have on fans, particularly les Québécois et les francophones. So they had that discussion and they knew of the allegations, obviously, but they made their decision. My concern is that we're a federal committee, dealing with important federal matters, and here we are jumping into the middle of a hockey decision over allegations that have not been proven yet.
When the witnesses sit there, I can hear what they're going to say already. They're going to say, “Our job is to win. We picked the best captain possible. Yes, there are allegations against him, but he is not yet guilty.”
If he were guilty it would change absolutely everything, but right now it's just going to become a discussion of opinion. Their opinion is that he's the best captain and he's not guilty. Your opinion might be that he may not be the best captain and there are allegations. It will just become a discussion of opinion.
My worry is that as a parliamentary committee working at the federal government level, we're injecting ourselves into something over what are right now allegations that have not been proven. That's where I'm coming from.