Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we are to put partisanship aside, it has to be done objectively and respectfully on both sides of the table. That does not detract from the quality of all the members who are here, and whom I admire. I admire everyone here. If we want to put partisanship aside, we must stop talking about interfering in a government’s selection process.
Mr. Choquette, stop laughing and listen to me.
You are telling those listening to us at SANB and the AJEFNB, among others, in Acadia, in New Brunswick, that this committee is completely incapacitated because we refuse to accept a motion suggesting to the government that those groups should have access to the Prime Minister. In fact, all the committees, organizations and individuals around the world who want to meet with the Prime Minister can do so, or at least ask to do so. What you are saying publicly is that this committee is incapacitated, because we are voting against this motion, which is a simple recommendation asking the Prime Minister to meet with those organizations.
All of us around this table are quality people. Since I have been on this committee, we have dealt with issues such as immigration, the translation bureau, Air Canada, early childhood, and so on. Not once were we quarrelsome or obstinate. Not once did we vote for one motion to the detriment of another. We have always passed the motions unanimously. It is wrong to claim or try to make people believe, and especially those two organizations for which we have a lot of respect, that this committee is incapacitated if this motion is rejected.
So we have to make that distinction. If we really want to put partisanship aside, we need to distinguish between subsection 49(1) of the act, the freedom of people to access or to request access to the Prime Minister, and the work that we do and for which we have been truly mandated.
That is why I am very comfortable voting against this motion.