Thank you very much Madam Chair.
Since we're discussing the amendment, I'll tell you why I find it appealing and why I like it so much.
Without going on too long, I'll also explain why I nevertheless intend to vote against it.
I find the amendment appealing because one of the arguments we've consistently heard since the debate began is that it will take a lot of time for many individuals to testify before the committee, that we should use that time to do something else, such as combating the pandemic, that Canadians aren't interested in the prorogation and that we therefore shouldn't dwell on it. However, nine hours of committee meetings have already been scheduled for the amendment. We feel that nine hours is ultimately not too long, that it's reasonable and that we can use that time to hear witnesses.
What's even more interesting, even though it's an open secret, is that many committee members would be inclined to have only six hours of testimony if certain persons, notably the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ms. Telford, came and testified.
Even if we could say at the outset that the use of time is a compelling argument, we can see, in spite of it all, that there's an obstruction here, that we've spent six meetings discussing the matter and that Mr. Lauzon has said he's prepared to continue discussing it for weeks. If the time argument is served up once again, the amendment that Mr. Turnbull has just introduced demolishes that claim.
We may therefore conclude that the mission we now seem to have set for ourselves isn't to use time efficiently but rather to ensure that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Telford do not testify before the committee on the specific issue of the prorogation.
It was said that they had already testified before the Standing Committee on Finance. However, I would point out that they did so before the prorogation and that they therefore could not provide testimony respecting an event that had not yet occurred.
Seeing that the most important thing for members of the party in power is not to have Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Telford testify on the prorogation issue raises questions in my mind. We've discussed at length the fact that prorogation is solely the prerogative of the prime minister. Far be it from me to compare the Prime Minister to the Good Lord, but, as the proverb goes, "Better to speak to God than to his saints." So if we want to know what the Prime Minister had in mind, I think we should speak to him.
The reason we should invite Ms. Telford is that we can expect, if not hope, that she has previously discussed the prorogation issue with the Prime Minister in her capacity as his chief of staff. If we heard testimony from both, we could then determine whether their versions are consistent and thus clarify the prorogation issue, on which they have not yet testified.
As previously suggested, but not introduced as an amendment by other members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, they could both testify for six hours, which is less than the nine hours proposed in the amendment we're discussing. The time argument therefore does not hold water.
For my part, I would like to hear from the person who made the decision to prorogue Parliament. That's why I will vote against the amendment currently on the table.