Yes, and I'll continue by picking up where Mr. Barrett left off. It's clear that's a tactic to disrupt, quite frankly, and if you've been in this House long enough—I've only been here six months—that is clearly not a point of order. I just want us to recognize that people are watching on live stream and they see the games that are being played at this committee.
Again, I'll put it to this committee. There is a subamendment on the table. The subamendment is tied to whether or not the Prime Minister is going to come here and testify. Unless I hear from multiple members of the governing party that they, too, believe that it's within the mandate to have the Prime Minister testify, I'm going to be supporting the subamendment. The math around the table is very simple.
I do appreciate the candour. I would like to continue and state that if we end up in a filibuster here, I'm happy to dig in and we can continue this, because with every single day that passes, more of this scandal comes to light in the media. If that's your intention—to draw this out and to play these games—then fine. If you don't believe that the Prime Minister should be here, then you ought not to vote for the amendment, because that's not negotiating in good faith, quite frankly.
That's what we're here to do. We've tried to bring a compromise to this table. We've heard quite clearly that there's no intention for the Prime Minister to come before us because they don't believe that's the mandate of this committee. I happen to believe that it is, Madam Chair.
Hopefully, folks have their speakers lists written down. I look forward to the continued debate.