I think you may be referring to a motion that I put on the Order Paper in respect of the confidence convention. That is very much about dissolution.
What I think is important here in the context of this study is that we report back on prorogation. While those powers aren't identical, they are similar in that they are both an instance where the Prime Minister has a unique prerogative. Technically, it's the prerogative of the Crown, but we all know that the Governor General only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister in this respect. It's a similar power that has very much to do with the efficacy of Parliament and the ability of Parliament to meet and the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account. The Prime Minister can dispense with that either by proroguing Parliament, as we saw late last year, or by dissolving Parliament altogether and trying to have a new Parliament.
I would say that the questions of prime ministerial judgment are similar with regard to how he exercises a certain power in relation to Parliament's capacity to meet, but they're not the same. I'd be very happy to have that study of the confidence convention and to see the committee make some recommendations in that regard as well. But what we can do right now, because it's before us, is the question of prorogation.
I just want to be clear that the interest in the Prime Minister isn't about the WE Charity in and of itself, as it stands alone. The interest in having the Prime Minister here is because he alone is the decision-maker in respect of prorogation, and we heard that. I believe the government House leader even said something to the effect in his testimony that you could have a debate about the timing, but at the end of the day those decisions are up to the Prime Minister. Well, yes, they are. That's why we should really have the Prime Minister here to have that opportunity to ask questions.
Asking questions is valuable, even if we think we already know the answer. Sometimes surprising things happen at committee. Sometimes you get a slightly different answer. Those things do matter. I don't think a written submission is an adequate substitution for that. I don't think it honours the tradition of parliamentary accountability, where decision-makers are subject to questioning. That's why I think there really is an important case for the Prime Minister to come.
I do hear that one of the sticking points for the other side is the request for the production of documents and having a lot of witnesses. That's an important thing for us to hear as we try to hammer out a way forward, looking towards our next meeting, where we're going to start with a clearer deck now that we've been able to have a vote on the amendment. We're taking in all this information. I certainly am. It will help inform discussions on how we move forward. It seems to me that everyone is anxious to move forward.
It's a question of who has the ability to break the logjam here. When we figure that out, we'll be looking to that person to show some leadership and get us beyond this impasse.
Thank you.