I call this meeting to order.
This is meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I'd like to remind members that today's meeting is televised and will be made available on the House of Commons website.
Today, we are studying the main estimates of 2021-22, vote 1, under the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Following the commissioner's appearance, if members do agree, all members will be voting on the estimates and discussing some committee business as well.
Just a reminder to committee members, we have set aside next week for the consideration of the draft report on the study of the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending.
First up this afternoon, we have the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Mario Dion.
Thanks so much for joining us. I know you've been a very busy commissioner. We appreciate that you've made time available to us in our study of the estimates.
Mr. Dion, the floor is yours.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear as you consider the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's submission for the 2021-2022 main estimates.
As many of you were not involved in the committee until last year, I will quickly describe the goals of my office since its creation 14 years ago.
Our primary goal is to help regulatees, that is, public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
In order to help the individuals subject to the rules, we continually improve how we communicate and engage with regulatees. This not only supports our primary goal, but also helps build trust in the office. It is important for us to work together with regulatees to help them comply with the Act and the Code as much as possible.
It is important that a continuous dialogue take place to avoid breaches. There must be trust between elected and appointed officials and their advisors in the office based on mutual respect and professionalism.
Over the years, a solid information management system has been created as it is key to providing the informed advice we try to give to regulatees. It also improves our efficiency because we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time advice is sought. It also ensures that we provide consistent advice from one individual to the next.
Our already established movement towards a digital office helped us tremendously when we moved to a virtual office in spring 2020 due to the pandemic. The process was nearly seamless for us.
The office operates with a total of 51 indeterminate positions. Most of the office's resources are dedicated to our primary goal, helping regulatees meet their obligations under the act and code. These resources are not just in our advisory and compliance division, although this is where almost one-third of our employees work, including your advisers, but it's also located within the communications group that provides educational documents and develops presentations for regulatees.
We also have a legal services and investigations division, which offers the legal opinions we rely on and, of course, conducts investigations. Finally, our corporate management division handles blind trusts, in addition, of course, to providing us with all the HR, information technology and financial support that we need.
In the past two years—and I use two years because I haven't been before this committee since May 2019—the number of reporting public office holders has increased by 7%. The office helps them, as well as the MPs, as well as the other public office holders. We have a total group of about 3,200 people we serve. In the vast majority of situations, we help them through email and telephone. This was the case already before the pandemic, so that's why it was relatively easy for us to switch to that mode when the pandemic hit.
Requests for presentations have dropped obviously because, of course, the pandemic has caused people to focus on their real delivery priorities, so we've had fewer presentations given in the last fiscal year. However, requests for advice were up through the pandemic, particularly in the last two quarters. We have already revised the presentations and have placed the focus recently on very specific, high-interest subject matters, such as recusals, outside activities and post-employment, that appear to reflect the most concerns for regulatees.
I had a session on recusals a few months ago, which was very well attended by over 300 [Technical difficulty—Editor]. On June 8 and June 16, I have already invited all the reporting [Technical difficulty—Editor] holders to a session on offers of outside employment and post-employment obligations.
Requests from the public for information have also increased 27% over the last fiscal year. There has been a steady interest from the media in the work of our office. Given the restrictions placed upon me by the act, we've worked hard to ensure that we are as open and transparent as possible with both the public and the media. Our approach has included more active use of Twitter to share information and updates. We have over 3,000 Twitter followers at this point in time. Last year we increased by 52% the number of tweets that we sent out in order to be of interest to our followers.
Since I was last before you, I have issued nine investigation reports under the act, and four under the code. We've always been able to complete our analyses and conclusions in less than one year, which was one of my initial goals when I was appointed back in early 2018. I set out this goal to complete—unless it was exceptionally complex or unless there were exceptional circumstances—any study, any review and examination that we do under the code or the act within one year. We've managed to do that in the 13 reports issued in the last two years, and 18 since I've been in my position in January 2018.
I hope you will share my view that we have produced quality work each time.
I'm here today, and I'm pleased to let you know that we currently have no investigations ongoing under the act—no backlog. Therefore, we're ready to accept the next complaint or the next situation where I have reasonable grounds to start an investigation. We have a couple still ongoing under the code. In fact, I'll be tabling a report before the House rises as a result of an investigation under the code.
We receive a fair volume of complaints and information, if you wish, from the public, from the media, so we've reviewed over 100 files, 100 situations, where my staff reviewed incoming information to determine whether we should investigate. There is a good flow of information that comes in all the time.
I will now talk about the budget, since that is what brings us here today.
This year, we are operating with a budget of $7.67 million. That represents an increase of about 2% over last year. That is what I requested. Last year, we also secured funding for three additional communications advisor positions and to keep our information technology system up to date. Since the office was created 14 years ago, the budget has grown by about $1.6 million over the original budget.
Let's talk a little about the pandemic. Obviously, that is what's on everyone's mind; as we heard earlier before the meeting started, the patios are opening tonight.
The pandemic hit us suddenly, as it did everyone else. Personally, I had a medical condition two or three years ago that made me more vulnerable. So I remember very well leaving the office not knowing, like all of you, when I was going to come back and how. We all thought it would be a few weeks. However, we had to take steps gradually.
We were lucky, because our employees already had tablets and could work from home. In addition to our policy to provide equipment in a controlled manner to facilitate telework while ensuring ergonomics, we took steps with each employee regarding Wi-Fi availability. For 51 employees, supplies cost $28,000, from equipment to paper, pencils, and so on. Those costs were offset by decreases in other costs, such as printing. We have saved a lot of paper and a lot of trees. We also achieved significant savings on mail-outs.
In general, employees really like being able to telework. So we have a positive workplace. We use technology, as Parliament has, to keep channels open and have a constant dialogue with employees.
All this work, of course, has been accomplished because of the 50 people who work with me, who have been very good throughout the pandemic.
We did not actually measure productivity, because we have no backlog, in any respect, anywhere in the organization. We've been able to cope with the volume of work in spite of the pandemic, while trying to minimize problems and help employees as much as possible vis-à-vis the maintenance of a good balance and a good mental health situation.
That's what I have this afternoon. I would be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that members might have.
We already have provisions on the appearance of conflict of interest, in the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, among others. In addition, when they have an apparent conflict of interest, court judges recuse themselves and do not sit. This seems to be quite common among those who have decisions to make. They don't leave themselves open by putting themselves in certain situations. It is said that if someone is in a situation of apparent conflict of interest, they undermine the appearance of justice, and the public may lose confidence in the judicial system. It seems to me that the same reasoning could be applied to situations involving government.
However, in this case, Mr. Dion, the appearance is quite significant. Members of 's family, including his mother, wife, and brother, received about half a million dollars, or at least several hundred thousand dollars, in contracts. Furthermore, Mr. Morneau's daughters worked for WE Charity. These individuals continued sitting even though they knew they were in a conflict of interest. Mr. Trudeau even postponed the decision to a later session because he was not comfortable sitting at that time. The contract was awarded under those conditions, without a competitive bidding process.
Ethics experts who testified before this committee told us that when you operate without a competitive bidding process because of the urgency of the situation, you have to be extra vigilant about anything that could give rise to conflicts of interest. In this case, not only was there no extra vigilance, there was less vigilance. No due diligence, accounting or forensic audits were done beforehand. It was even proven that the WE Charity people had negotiated directly with the government when they were not even registered as lobbyists.
So the contract was awarded to WE Charity, an empty shell with no financial history or assets to secure its obligations. No guarantees, bonds, mortgages or anything else were offered to the government. Yet the government gave WE Charity a contract for $500 million, perhaps as much as $800 million, without any auditing or bidding, simply because the Kielburger brothers were known to the Trudeau family. The Trudeau family had a relationship with them for about 20 years. I believe in 's case it dated back when the organization was founded in the 2000s.
I don't mean to suggest that you have done a bad job. I know that you are working within the provisions of the Act as it currently stands. However, shouldn't the extent of this apparent conflict of interest lead us to believe we need to anticipate such situations? Apparent conflicts of interest of this magnitude must be covered, so that situations of this kind can be avoided. Otherwise, it will be difficult to maintain public confidence in the current government.
What are your thoughts, Mr. Dion?
Thank you, Mr. Dion, for coming. On behalf of the Canadian people I would like to thank you for this report that really shows the shocking level of insider access that's happening in Ottawa.
When we began the study of the WE Charity issue, we thought we were dealing with the crisis of the pandemic and that quick decisions had to be made and a few mistakes may have happened, but what you lay out is a pattern of inappropriate breaches of all the rules that should be in place to protect the public interest—and this goes back. This is the operating culture between the Kielburger brothers and the Liberal government.
In June 2017, Mr. Kielburger and Mr. Morneau meet, and they decide that the finance minister's office is going to help them get their funding for their accelerator hub, that they are going to start using public resources to hustle for the Kielburgers. In November 2017, they are establishing pre-budget consultations in the Kielburger's offices, and the WE brothers are promoting this for the finance minister.
In December 2017, there were separate emails to various chiefs of staff from Bill Morneau's office to ministers within the Government of Ontario introducing Craig Kielburger as a “dear friend” and a “great local partner”, and asking provincial counterparts to make time to meet with Mr. Kielburger. When they get the provincial funding, Mr. Morneau's office is the first one notified and then he calls his bestie, Craig Kielburger.
I put it to you, Mr. Dion, we would never have learned this if it hadn't been for your investigation, so I take from that, for other groups like the Kielburgers, why bother to register as lobbyists? They were able to fly under the radar. They were able to have insider access, and all the normal rules were able to be broken. We don't know if they had this access in 's office or any other minister's office. We just know from your report.
How do we stop this abusive insider access of the public interest? How do we ensure that, if they're not going to bother to be registered to lobby, and if there is no lobbying investigation, the Kielburger brothers and their like can't carry on and do what they want. It's not right.
I don't see how you could have looked at it because when I asked the Kielburgers the questions, they hemmed and hawed.
I don't know if you're aware, Mr. Dion, but at their for-profit company the Kielburgers charge corporations to come up on stage with them to be vetted by the WE organization to say they're a good guy. They charge literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for that, but received that for free.
When I look at the parts 2(e) and 14(1) of the code, it may not have been in the scope of this investigation, but for me, as a politician, to go up on stage to be presented to tens of thousands of future voters who are being told by an organization that has been built up as the wonderful WE organization that I've been fully vetted and supported, that's of great value to me. They were actually charging corporations. This was not a donation to a charity. They actually paid for advertising and branding, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They even made a promotional video for . I asked them how much the value of that was, and of course they didn't tell me. We got it just a few weeks ago, so you could not have possibly known the value of that video they gave to Mr. Trudeau at these events. It was $121,000 for 10 videos, and his was one of them. If we just do a division, it would be $12,000 for his video. If you've ever seen it, it's a very good, snazzy video, a promotion that, for any politician, if they received it, would be an extremely high-value product—and he received it.
My question for you would be this. If you had known that had received from ME to WE, a for-profit organization, benefits that a private company would be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for and a promotional video very close to the election worth at least $12,000, would that be something that under the code, parts 2(e) or 14(1), would be seen as questionable?
Thank you, Mr. Dong. You are out of time, and that's an appropriate end to the time with the commissioner.
Commissioner, we want to thank you for your testimony today. We thank you for being with us. We know you've been very busy over the last number of months during difficult and trying times. Just as Mr. Dong commended the government, I'd like to commend you, Mr. Dion, for undertaking your work diligently and completing these reports in a timely manner so that committee members and parliamentarians and Canadians generally can review your work.
Thank you, Mr. Dion. We will allow you to go. We thank you for being here and we will now allow you to leave.
We're going to move to votes on the estimates.
Committee members, there are a couple of ways to do this. I think we'll just move through the votes. There are six motions that we have to adopt. Just as a reminder to members, it is possible to vote down the granting of these amounts. We can reduce them, but we cannot reduce them below the amount that has been granted through interim supply.
If there's a willingness for committee members to proceed to the votes, we'll quickly do so, after which we can move into committee business.
I will start reading through the motions. We will assume there's unanimous consent to carry on, unless somebody opposes, then we'll move to a vote by head count.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
I'm speaking to my motion today to invite , the Minister of Heritage, to come to the ethics and privacy committee to testify on the plans that are being led through the heritage department to deal with the allegations of non-consensual sexual assault videos that exist on PornHub.
At the April 12 ethics meeting, we were informed by security minister that the government of will “introduce legislation to create a new regulator that will ensure online platforms remove harmful content, including depictions of child sexual exploitation and intimate images that are shared without consent” and that “Public Safety Canada and other departments are working on this proposed legislation with Canadian Heritage, which leads this effort.”
We have had no indication of what this new regulator is and I think we need clarity.
I would just step back a minute and say that this all stems from the December 2020 reports that came out of the United States on horrific abuse of children and sexual assault victims on PornHub, a company that is based in Canada. We began our study at that time to see if our laws were insufficient or if there was a problem. We asked the RCMP to come. The RCMP have made it clear that they are not moving forward with allegations against PornHub. They've talked about their being a partner. They've talked about voluntary compliance.
I received the RCMP's internal briefing documents in response to the December 2020 article, and in that document, it talks about what next steps have to be done and it mentions the leadership of the heritage department. My office asked the RCMP to send us the blacked-out information to explain why the RCMP is deferring to 's office. My staff was told that this would breach cabinet confidence.
What that tells me is that after the December 2020 article came out in The New York Times on PornHub, this issue was discussed at the cabinet of and a decision was made then to have and the heritage department handle this file, rather than transferring it over to police, to the or to public security.
I think this is really important. We cannot finish our PornHub study without knowing what exactly the government's plan is, because we have Bill right now that is in charge of, and I think the government shocked everybody when they decided to put user-generated content under Bill . I've talked to many arts organizations that were shocked that Bill includes user-generated content. It is nothing that the artists' community wanted. They want Facebook and Google to pay their share. Where is this user-generated content coming from? Is this to address the allegations the survivors brought to us on PornHub?
If that is the case, needs to explain that, because I don't think you could disrespect survivors in any more of an egregious fashion than to suggest that sexual assault videos or videos of the torture of children that were brought forward to our committee are somehow considered user-generated content in Canada. What does that say to survivors? What does that say to the women of the global south who I have been meeting with, who are speaking from Nigeria, Colombia, Spain and France, talking about the sexual assault videos from their countries that are being posted on a Canadian site?
Are the Liberals telling us that they consider sexual assault and criminal acts mere content that can be handled by a regulator? Are they going to hand it off to the CRTC under Bill , or are they going to create a new pornography regulator? I would like to know what that pornography regulator would be, because, again, I had excellent meetings following the debacle of our meetings with the sex workers, and Ms. Lukings provided really interesting analysis of how what we want to do is to make sure we hold corporations accountable for what's online, but we don't want to push stuff to the dark net.
If the Liberals have this idea that could set up some kind of regulator to tell us—I don't know—Canadian content in porn, good porn, bad porn.... Do we need a regulator or do we simply need the Liberal government to apply the laws?
We can look at the laws we have in Canada. In section 162 of the Criminal Code, it is a crime to film the private acts of individuals or people without their consent. It is a crime to circulate, to sell, to advertise or to make available the recording. We have a law. In section 163, sexual videos of crime, cruelty and violence are classified as criminal in behaviour. We heard from the survivors of non-consensual sexual assault videos that their videos were videos of crime, cruelty and violence. Section 164 gives the authorities, which would be the RCMP, the power to issue warrants to seize the recordings of voyeuristic videos of crimes as well as child pornography.
We have mandatory reporting laws. We have learned that Pornhub has not followed through on them. Pornhub has not respected the laws we have in this country.
The doesn't seem to even think it applies, because he's not sure if this Montreal-based company is a Canadian company. If the Attorney General, who lives in Montreal, isn't sure that Pornhub is a Canadian company, even though their address is on Décarie Boulevard and everybody in Montreal who goes to work passes their office in the morning, then how are we expected to believe that the CRTC or some kind of regulator will handle this?
I think needs to come and explain this to us. What is the government's plan for dealing with the issues of sexual violence on Pornhub that have come to our committee? Are we going to ignore Canadian law or are we going to establish the CRTC to do this? Is this going to be Bill or...? suggested that they're going to create a new regulator.
I think needs to come and inform us so that we can actually finish a report on what Parliament needs to do to address these disturbing allegations of brutality and non-consensual sexual assault of women, not just from Canada but from around the world. We need to be able to respond to those survivors and to the Canadian people that we've done our job. We cannot do that job without Mr. Guilbeault coming and explaining why he is the lead person appointed by the government to address these very serious allegations.
I'd like to bring that motion forward for a vote.
I'm going to keep my turn this time. I have something else to say, but I'd like to comment on the motion.
We have seven meetings left. If I understand correctly, four of them are to review reports. That leaves us three meetings.
Furthermore, we are aware that Ms. Shanahan may be putting forward a motion today.
Top of mind are the people watching us and following our proceedings. The purpose of the original motion, adopted in December, was to meet with the owners and executives of Pornhub. Naturally, once we started looking into the matter, we wanted to go deeper. Unfortunately, the committee doesn't meet five days a week or have 20 hours of meeting time a week. My biggest concern is finalizing the reports. Let's be frank: we could take longer. After all, the committee has gone over the time allotted in the past.
We have three meetings left. I'm sure my fellow members have suggestions on how we can end the session on as good of a note as we started it on. I won't go on about it, but I am quite concerned about the committee's ability to be effective, on behalf of those who are counting on us. We need to respect the purview of each committee. A committee can study an issue inside and out. As mentioned, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women took a different approach in the case of Pornhub, deciding to apply a different lens. The same is true in this case: the committee is examining Bill .
I just want to be sure that the right work is being done at the right place.
That is my first concern.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I listened carefully to my colleagues' previous arguments and their positions with regard to this motion.
What caught my attention was the fact that Mr. Angus mentioned that he received briefings on the dark web and from Ms. Lukings. That reminded me that I had a lot of interest in that. My fellow colleagues also asked questions about that, but we never really had a fulsome discussion or session to hear a bit more information about the dark web. To be fair, the last meeting that we had, when we had these witnesses, the advocates of sex workers, they didn't get a fair chance to maximize their time at committee and express their full perspectives on this study.
It would be very good to.... I spoke previously in support of Mrs. Shanahan's motion to invite them back. That would add to the comprehensiveness of this report.
As to Mr. Angus's motion, I understand where he is coming from. It is based on a lot of assumptions, namely that the government is moving to legislate and regulate this industry. I will go with the decision of the members of this committee.
I will support it if we can consider a friendly amendment, which I want to move for members to consider.
I move that, after the words in the original motion “Brenda Lucki”, the following be added, “that the committee hear from experts on the dark web for one hour, and that the committee invite Ms. Lukings to be part of that panel.”
Thank you very much, Chair.
I would note that I, too, had a motion that I wanted to present. I understand that'll occur after this is dealt with. It concerns the order of the House regarding the nomination and the extension of the term of the Privacy Commissioner.
On this amendment, yes, of course, I'm in agreement because it follows on what I was attempting not very elegantly to do. I agree.
When we had our last panel of witnesses on this issue, we were becoming aware that there is what is seen and there is what is unseen. It's not for nothing that our study on MindGeek and Pornhub has really stirred up so much attention among ordinary Canadians and the media. The Internet space, the web and the dark web are a completely new area of study. These are things I certainly didn't have any knowledge of prior to the very recent revelations that we've had over the past few years about just who and what, as we far as we know, operates in this space. We don't know. This study is so critical. It's about the non-consensual use of images, and we need to get a fuller understanding.
This is really one of the first times that a parliamentary committee is attacking this area. Certainly that is what I was trying to do when I moved my motion during that meeting a month or so ago in that we should hear from more witnesses. I'd like to hear from Professor Lukings again. She certainly had a lot to say on this issue. Also, we may be able to find someone else, such as perhaps a retired RCMP officer who has worked in this area and can maybe speak much more freely about the kind of work that he or she had been seeing.
I really think that this is an area we need to more fully explore. We need to have as much information as possible before we are ready to do that report and put forward recommendations, which I think will be very welcomed by the Canadian public. I'm not saying that it'll be the last word on it—far from it—but I think it's going to be a very important step forward in opening a crack in this door, which clearly has been closed.
Of course, in addressing the issue of Pornhub, our intent was never to drive the illegal traffic to the dark web. That was never our intention. We need to understand what we are doing in this space and for that reason, I support the amendment. Thank you.
I think we can work this out. I do have to say, from that last meeting I felt very uncomfortable with this committee, because we said we were going to make a safe space for survivors and that didn't happen. I also feel that we have to be really careful about what it is and how we're talking about it because, for the survivors who came to us, we said that we would hear their stories with respect and that did not happen. I would also say some of those witnesses, to me, were gaslighting the survivors whom we heard from. We heard some really horrific testimony.
If I am to support Mr. Dong's amendment.... I've spoken with Ms. Lukings and I think she's really articulate on this and would be very helpful, but his amendment is about the dark web. If the witnesses we are going to agree on are experts on the dark web, I'm open to that.
Then I think we're going to have to close off this study, because time is ticking on this Parliament. If members want to use that as a way to bring in other witnesses who have other points of view, I've been on the phone with women dealing with Pornhub from Spain, Italy, Colombia, eastern Europe, Nigeria. They would love to speak to this committee, so if we're going to open it up, then I say to really open it up or we're going to actually get this thing finalized.
I think is important because we were told by that the government is introducing legislation and Canadian Heritage is the lead, so we need to hear from them. If we heard from Mr. Guilbeault for an hour and we heard from experts on the dark net, including Ms. Lukings, and maybe, as Madam Shanahan said, someone from the RCMP who deals with this, or some expert, Project P perhaps, then I think we'd be in a situation where we could finalize this report.
If that's the agreement, I'm ready to put it to a vote at any time. I know Mrs. Shanahan has another motion that we have to vote on and time is ticking, so I'm ready to vote now, if that's the agreement.
I will pick up where I left off.
Obviously, this is an issue we must be concerned about. I, too, walked away feeling uncomfortable after our meeting with the witnesses. It was obvious. I even said I was embarrassed. How are we supposed to finish our work after what we learned during the study we began on Pornhub? I am genuinely concerned, which is why I am very amenable to amending the motion. I know full well that we could spend a lot more time on Pornhub. We nevertheless have to work on the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying report, which will take at least two meetings. I keep thinking about the schedule.
What we are missing to get to the bottom of the matter and see the study through, as proposed in the motion and amendment, is time. I'm wondering whether we should go ahead with the meeting and put off finalizing the report again, or perhaps deal with the other reports to give us a bit of leeway to finalize this one.
That is why I am very uneasy about voting. I would support an amendment to put it off until we've finished with the other two reports. That way, we could get the work done. That does not mean I don't fully support broadening the study to cover elements we did not have in mind initially. We are well aware that it's important to go deeper.
Mr. Chair, I am not moving this formally, but the report on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying is clearly a priority. We should deal with that first, before the report on the Pornhub study or anything else. Now, I'm at a loss for arguments, perhaps because I don't have as much experience. We need to draft the report on the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms such as Pornhub, but this adds the dark web to the mix. That involves the heritage committee and a number of others. Eventually, we have to finish the work.
If you are telling me that we absolutely need to have this meeting and that the analysts will be able to draft the final report for our review, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, I would move an amendment to have the committee examine the whole issue only once the other reports have been dealt with.
Time is absolutely important, because we have responsibilities. We have agreed to the meetings to finish the pandemic report and have it reported back to Parliament, I think by June 10, so that's there.
I think what my colleagues from the Liberals have brought forward is very reasonable. It allows us to at least say that we've touched all the key areas. There are many other areas, but obviously time has run out. This would allow us to finish the report.
I would trust my colleagues that we're agreed that these would be the final meetings and that we move on. I think we would all agree to doing so. We could put it in the motion as an amendment and vote on it, or we can just say that we all recognize that time is ticking and we have to get this done and that we get that meeting.
I'd say we vote on it now, because Mrs. Shanahan also has a motion, and we probably want to hear that one. If, then, we could just vote on this, I think we can agree that this would be the final meeting on this study. We'll wrap it up. We will have done a good opening round of work for the Canadian people, one that has raised a lot of questions.
We can't answer them all, but this is a good way to have opened up a study that people can look at. Maybe in a future Parliament or down the road, someone else will take it up from where we've started, but we need to finish it off.
I don't know that we need Mr. Barrett to put it in writing, I think we can just agree that this will be the end and that we move on from here.