The point of order is not a matter of relevance, and it is a question that has already been posed to me concerning the motions that were submitted to the committee by Mr. Tilson. These are what Mr. Poilievre has been discussing.
There is an issue with regard to whether or not matters that have to do with the 1997 and 2000 elections, as well as dealing with individuals who are associated with a political party, and none of those individuals being public office holders, would still be worked into being relevant to the matter before us. It would appear that the elections rules have changed over the last 10 years. Members probably are not familiar and would not be in a position to deal with that here without having a chance to go away and educate themselves or inform themselves on what the rules were during each of those elections.
It is, in my view, clearly beyond the scope of the matters before us, and I'm going to have some difficulty accepting that those are matters that should be discussed here.
So with regard to that issue, I have a problem dealing with that in terms of relevance with regard to the main motion before the committee. But secondarily, as I had asked members to consider, and Mr. Poilievre, as I had indicated to you, to mention an example and briefly highlight the relevance is okay, but again, sir, with respect, I think you have really got into a full argument of a particular point.
So I'm going to return the floor to you. If you want to give your examples, that's fine, but there comes a point at which several examples may be enough to make your point.