—it's necessary.
I won't argue the point. You're probably right. There are probably people at home right now who, a long time ago, flipped the channel.
I was starting to talk about the credentials of Mr. Paterson, and how his background and his experience would be important to this committee, notwithstanding the government keeps wanting to jump in and say that we don't have to travel to go and see Mr. Paterson. Not once in any of my remarks did I say we needed to, because it's a separate bullet point.
This one is just about the witnesses we would hear. They might be by video conference, or they might be here. That's not the issue. That's not the travel part. We can do all of that. In fact, I still suspect that if were to do a public consultation, if the government suddenly were to go democratic on us and were willing to let Canadians have a say about their own election law, most of those hearings would be here. Even though some of them should be out across the country, the majority would likely still be here.
Would Mr. Paterson come here personally? Would we have him by video link? I don't know. That's not the point. We're not saying we have to travel to see him, per se. Now, it might be that wisdom would prevail. If we set up a series of meetings, most of which would be here in Ottawa, but some of which would be out in the rest of the country, it may very well be that we would meet Mr. Paterson in B.C. But it is not the motion, and it is not our argument. We think Mr. Paterson should be invited because of his expertise in the area of rights. He knows and understands many of the communities we're most concerned about in terms of losing their franchise, their precious right to vote in a Canadian election.
It's interesting. He also holds a law degree and a master's. And he worked at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
I can see why Mr. Lukiwski has run up the white flag on the first point. Clearly, we do have good arguments there.
I'll work my way across, hopefully, and pick up the others. Some might say, well, that's not going to happen. But I can tell you that there are many who said, “You'll never even get a piece of Lukiwski. It will never happen.” But we already did. We already got him. He loves the first point, that it invites all the witnesses. And he agrees. But I don't have a majority yet, Mr. Chair. So it's really important for me to continue to make these points and to help educate my colleagues and help them understand—just as Mr. Lukiwski understands the first bullet point—why this is a good motion that makes sense and should be adopted.
Quite frankly, the members opposite talk about the fact that my talking is what's preventing us from getting on with it, but it's actually the recalcitrance of the government. Otherwise, we would have negotiated a deal three weeks ago and would be well under way, studying the bill, with plans to go out into the country and into various communities, having negotiated that number and where they would be. We'd be well on our way if the government would just say, “We agree with your motion, and we'll vote for it.” That is, theoretically, Chair, just as likely an outcome as my eventually collapsing because I just can't keep going any more.
My speaking is not the only way we can start getting down to work. Quite frankly, if the government would be more flexible and offer just a little bit of democracy in the process, we could wrap this up.
I said it before, and it still deserves to be said, because it's timely. I believe that if there was will on both sides, we could negotiate a travel plan in 30 minutes. I really do.