Okay. Let me know if you can't hear me.
I appreciate Mr. Blaikie's comments, as always. I think you're right; he is somewhat persuasive, although I have to note that despite our both having a love for philosophy and some other things, I disagreed with Mr. Blaikie when he spoke about the pandemic. He used a phrase that bothered me. I must point this out.
Mr. Blaikie, you said the pandemic also matters. I know within the context of what you're saying, you were saying that to mean that it also matters, given all the other things. For us on this side, we're seized with supporting Canadians through this pandemic every step of the way. To us it's not something that also matters; it is what matters most right now for Canadians.
I think Mr. Long especially pointed this out, but so did Dr. Duncan. I think every one of the Liberal members on this committee has pointed out to what degree Canadians feel this particular study is relevant to them at the moment.
We've also done this study. We've had witnesses come before this committee. They've given some pretty substantive testimony, I think. We heard from the government House leader. I think we've done justice to a process. I know you don't agree with me because you want an hour with the Prime Minister. I get that. We've had a report tabled. The Prime Minister has already testified. You've indicated that you want to ask him questions about WE Charity. You've already done that, though, so what is it?
I think Mr. Long's points were quite compelling as well. We've been there, done that. I feel that because you didn't get what you want you want to rinse and repeat and try to dig up something else. It's not there.
There's a good rationale. I've spent many hours digging into information and making a substantive argument that shows how the reasons given for prorogation are completely rational and well-founded. You've never once addressed that. You seem to want to get the witnesses you want because you know that's your best chance at having a—