If people have the time and patience, it is worth listening to the audio of the committee's first hearings this past Monday, linked here.
(Man, is that site unhelpful so far or what? I don't see a full list of who has made submissions, much less an archive, and I've written to ask them when they might provide either. At the moment, it's hard to navigate around the site itself.)
For my sins, I sat through the whole thing, two panels, this a.m. The first panel, MacShane and Weisskirchen, was actually very interesting and kind of lulled me out of my annoyance with the whole idea in the first place. Those two have an obvious sympathetic tilt towards this unconstitutional adventure, but they are articulate and thoughtful people, and our MPs were mainly just asking them for background information, so the first hour is fairly civilized.
MacShane talked a lot about the resurgence of neo-fascism in Europe (not just Eastern Europe, as Stockholm at babble would have you believe), and Weisskirchen was moving if troubling on the subject of German revisionism. At one point, eg, he cited Gunter Grass's guilty admissions last year as an example of revisionism, which I think is just the opposite of the truth. But anyway, that was interesting and intelligent.
Then came the second panel, and everything changed. Cotler (also a member of the committee) might as well have been reading the CJC submission, although at least he didn't take flight on Islamophobic fantasies. The other two panelists, both Americans (Small is originally Canadian), did, in clichÃ©'d war on terra, clash of civilization terms. The one MP who, very late in the recording, said much on his own was Scott Reid, who I take to be a major mover of unconstitutional inquiries into the "values" held by citizens.
I ended up exceptionally annoyed, although I guess I knew that I would.