Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll be very brief in my comments and they really pertain to the conversation that we've been having.
There have been studies, as you note, in the past. In fact, at the request of my friend from the Bloc, my colleague, Monsieur Lemire, there was an entire study done on sport where witnesses all appeared anonymously or appeared after being verified without their faces on the screen. The witness we're talking about is somebody who I asked to appear. She's one of the most accomplished leaders in AI. She's an incredibly accomplished scientist, the kind of woman who I think a lot of young women look up to as a role model in the sciences, in fields that have historically been dominated largely by men.
I'm interested in what she has to say. She's clearly identified who she is. I think we have to be sensitive to a world in which people are deeply concerned about why their features appear on the Internet. There's a reason why my kids don't appear on the Internet; there are lots of folks out there who can do some very unsavoury things. I don't know what her reasons are. It's not for me to say.
It's not for me to say, but I would say that if we want to have the ability to have the best folks appear at these committees, we're going to have to find ways to make sure they are comfortable giving their testimony. To Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas' point, we have to be comfortable that we're getting testimony from the people who we think we're getting. Clearly, we know who she is.
I can tell you that I have had dinner with her. She is an extremely intelligent, real person with lots of good things that I want to hear her say, and I think others do. I think these are the types of conversations that would give pause to others who may want to come and testify because nobody wants to have their reasons for doing something litigated, when in fact what we want is their testimony.