I'll repeat what I just said. I'd like to thank Mr. Lauzon behalf of everyone for having given us some time to speak. I know that he had a lot to say, but I'd like to thank him for having passed the puck to us. It was very kind of him.
My apologies to Mr. Turnbull because I hadn't noticed earlier that he came before me on the list. I hadn't intended to take his place. Quite the contrary, because I always like to hear what he has to say.
I'll be brief. I think that Mr. Blaikie's motion is a step in the right direction.
The number two person in the government did in fact come. My view is that on matters like these, the House leader is really number two. I have a lot of respect for the Deputy Prime Minister, but the House leader is responsible for House procedures. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Rodriguez. Unfortunately, when he appeared before the committee—and I already mentioned this, but simply want to reiterate what I said—he was unable to answer the existential questions that needed to be asked to understand why the government had prorogued Parliament.
. This leads me to believe that if number two cannot give us the information we need, then we need number one to come and see us if we are to do our work properly. We have a mandate to study the prorogation, and I know that here on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we are professionals and know that beyond partisanship, we have work to do. If we want to get it done, then the Prime Minister has to come and answer our questions.
I commend Mr. Blaikie's approach. If we could meet with Mr. Trudeau for at least an hour, we could wrap up the study of the prorogation and then move on to Bill C‑19.
That would suit me. I believe it's important and it would open the door to the only opportunity we have to do our work as well as possible. Having Mr. Rodriguez here convinced me that without Mr. Trudeau, it would be impossible to do an intelligent analysis of the prorogation.
That's all I wanted to say.