I'm back to Ms. Vecchio's initial motion. I'd like to go over this lengthy motion briefly. There were several paragraphs, from (a) to (h).
Point (a) was to request Mr. Trudeau's appearance for three hours. We reduced that to at least one hour, a major compromise. As I was saying earlier, the Prime Minister must come if we are to do intelligent and rational work that is worthy of our mission and the committee's.
Point (b) was to renew the invitations issued to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. We agreed to drop this and not invite them. We said that we wouldn't engage in partisanship because we weren't sure that they would have any information beyond what Mr. Trudeau could provide to the committee.
Point (c), to renew the invitations issued to the Honourable Bill Morneau, Katie Telford, and the Kielburger brothers, was dropped. We agreed that it wasn't serious and that if the Prime Minister were to appear, that would be all we would need to go over the reasons for the prorogation. We didn't want to be partisan.
Point (d) was to renew the invitations issued to Farah Perelmuter and Martin Perelmuter to appear before the committee. We decided to drop that. We did not want to be partisan because that was not our goal. Our mandate mentioned the reasons for the prorogation, and that is what had to be the focus. We would engage neither in partisanship nor in petty politics.
Point (e) was to issue an order for the production of all memoranda, emails, text messages, documents, notes or other records from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office. We dropped that because it was not what we wanted to do. We did not want to play politics with our work on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose members are expected to be people of good will working to discover the truth and improve the efficacy of our institutions. When we talk about institutions and prorogation, I think it's clear that if we understand why there is a prorogation, it move things forward by providing an understanding of why we analyze the structure and vitality of our institutions.
Point (f), to issue an order for the production of records of all communications between the government and any WE Charity organizations, was dropped. This was another step in the right direction, in fact more than a step—a great leap forward.
Point (g), to order the WE Charity to produce all memoranda, was also dropped. That, then, is what we did. We made huge strides in demonstrating that we were acting in good faith.
The Liberals have confidence in their Prime Minister, and I can understand that because he is their leader. I, on the other hand, have total confidence in my leader, Mr. Yves-François Blanchette, and his ability to answer questions and take action. If the Liberals have confidence in their Prime Minister, why are they refusing to have him appear for an hour?
Just have a look at the members of this committee: Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Kent, Ms. Vecchio, Mr. Blaikie, me. I won't name everyone. I don't see a Dracula or a Frankenstein here, but only MPs who want to work as part of a team. We're nice people and I know it. We just want to ask some questions in order to get some clarification, and we can only get that from the Prime Minister.