Mr. Chairman, we're supposed to be looking at these things as a continuum. The speaker continues to go back to his original motion. He keeps explaining why it would be important to be able to hear from Canadians. This is the fundamental law of our democracy.
If we were to simply say that we should hear from this group and not tell you why, no one would get the argument. If he were to say we should hear from this group because the group does such and such, people might or might not think it valid. If he says to you, "We should hear from this group; they do this” and “Here are some of the people working for that group; they have actually worked on the issue. Did you know that fully 65%, two out of three young people aged 18 to 25 didn't bother to vote in the last election?".... That's what he's talking about here. That's in the biography he's reading to you.
This is a specific concern for anyone who is worried about democracy in our society. That's precisely why he's doing this. He's explaining to you why it would be relevant to go across Canada: because this is the type of person we could hear from.
Samara has been doing great work on this. There are specific people involved in Samara. Instead of saying, "I know this person who can do a great job", he's telling you chapter and verse why it would be a good job.
So I put it to you, and it's quite obvious, that this is directly related to the motion before us. He has said why we should be listening to different groups across Canada on the fundamental changes that would be wrought by this bill. We think this is entirely pertinent and we consider that he should be allowed to continue to present the people that he would like to hear from, not just give their names or the groups that they're with.