I do understand the political appetite to bring these particular witnesses, and in Mr. Poilievre's typical flamboyant way to have an opportunity before an election to question them, but let's step back and take a look at what Mr. Christopherson has said.
There is a chance that this particular committee would take on a very different composition should an election occur, and we have a number of reports that are at their final stage. If this conjecture about an election date is correct, then we won't have a report on this particular issue for which the witnesses will come before us, so we won't have a satisfactory conclusion.
We've heard many witnesses before, and reference was made today to how witnesses talk out the clock, etc. Perhaps a couple of sessions may be adequate if we hear adequate answers, and we'll have lost the opportunity to address reports that are 95% done on very important issues.
Should there not be an election, then we still have the opportunity to deal with this particular issue, but it won't be dealt with one way or another. All this change of dates will provide is a little bit of political theatre prior to a potential election. I think that does a disservice, especially when it comes to such important issues as the forensic laboratories in the RCMP and some of the others that have come forward on that particular date.