Thank you very much.
I do appreciate—I deeply appreciate, actually—the candour of this discussion. I think it's very important for us to be open and honest with Canadians in terms of what our intention is when we enter into these good faith discussions, because it is a critical point.
I have to say, coming from city council myself, that the size and scope of this type of scandal would have required probably an immediate censure and there wouldn't have been a long and drawn-out process, given the information that's already been made public, quite frankly.
The spirit of the motion was to have the Prime Minister here today. What I've heard in the previous speakers' comments is that there's really no intention to have the Prime Minister join us here today, and that in fact it's not part of what they think is the appropriate use and mandate of this committee.
What I'm not interested in, Madam Chair, is the theatre of the invitation. What I want to be assured of is that when people are voting to support this invitation to the Prime Minister to testify here, they're doing it in good faith, where they actually believe—and they state on the record here today that they believe—that the Prime Minister should testify at this committee, given our mandate.
If that's not present, if this is going to be the theatre of voting for the amendment simply to get the documents subverted from this committee to the ethics and conflict of interest investigator, then that's not actually supporting the spirit and intent of the compromise, because this isn't actually a compromise at all, in fact.
That being said, I would love to hear from members opposite that they do believe that the mandate of this committee is much like that of any other committee. I'm on OGGO as well. Ministers are not backbenchers. This is not about dragging any old politician before a committee. This is about government. This is about cabinet. This is about responsibility. Quite frankly, I've said this before. Apologies are not the same as taking responsibility, and taking responsibility demands holding accountability. This committee is structured to hold government accountable.
Through you, Madam Chair, I need to be very clear again and plain in my language. If the members opposite do not actually believe in the intent and don't support having the Prime Minister come before us today, then I will be supporting the subamendment, and we will bring the documents here, because that's the spirit and intention of the motion that my colleague brought to this table, and I'm not here to play games, quite frankly.
Unless I hear from the opposite side that they believe the Prime Minister, much like he's doing in finance, much like ministers do—