Thank you very much. I'm not going to take up very much time this morning. I know it's really important that we have lots of things coming to us. There's Bill C-19 of course. I'm going to speak a little bit about the mandate, but I think it's really important that we figure out where we're going in these next few steps. I know that right now there will be Bill C-19, and we do want to look at that here in this committee. It's very, very important that we look at this bill. We do have a hurdle and we need to get over that hurdle today, and that is the amendment brought forward by Ryan Turnbull.
I'm just bringing this forward because—let's not kid ourselves. Let's call it what it is. It's a filibuster and it's been a filibuster since February 23, so let's just get over that and see how we can get to a decision on where we want to go. I'm going to put it right out there, and I think we've always said so. Speaking to all opposition parties, I know that with our prorogation study we are focusing on hearing from the Prime Minister, who ultimately would have had the opportunity and who ultimately is the person who called for the prorogation. At that time, in our initial motion, we also looked at the chief of staff, Katie Telford. I'm unsure whether anyone will want her to go to any committees right now. Honestly, I know that it's a hot thing, so it would be a very hot topic to invite her to this, so I don't necessarily want to go there. The Prime Minister is ultimately who we want to hear from.
There are lots of different asks here. There have been discussions about trying to bring in WE Charity. Well, perhaps we can negotiate. That's what I'm saying. I am letting you know that if you're looking at the entire motion, whether it's the original motion or the amended motion, ultimately, there is one person everybody wants to see. That is why I would be voting against Mr. Turnbull's amendment, because it does not include the Prime Minister or even representation from the PMO, including documents. That's why I would not be able to support that, truly, just on the fact that the one key person everybody wants to see on this matter is the Prime Minister, and his name does not appear in that amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it.
When we look at the original amendment, we can also recognize that some people from my original motion are in this amended motion, and that's fine. I'm not saying let's drop it all. I'm saying when the only thing we want is for the Prime Minister to come to this committee and we're asking—originally, I was asking for three hours. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie will join in this conversation to talk about some of those discussions, but I've heard Mr. Blaikie say, “Listen, I want him for an hour.” I don't know if that's a perfect quote, but that's a Daniel Blaikie quote for you. Daniel would like to see him as well. I've heard the same thing from Alain Therrien. I don't know if he'll want me to do it in French today, but I will make sure I will do it in time for him.
Ultimately, we want to see the Prime Minister. I don't know if you've heard any of us talk about the Kielburgers in the last two and a half or three months. There hasn't been much discussion coming from this side. Let's call it what it is. We want the Prime Minister at this committee. This amendment does not include the Prime Minister. The original motion doesn't include the Prime Minister. Hopefully we can get through, knowing that all opposition parties are asking for one thing and one thing clearly, being the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, to come here to committee to explain to us about the prorogation and his decisions.
We have not set out a time frame. I'm looking at my guys. I'm looking at John, Peter and Tom. I'm looking at you guys and saying, “Sorry. I'm really going out there, but we just want the Prime Minister. That's what we want.”
Daniel has offered one hour. We've said three. Let's get down to real negotiations. Let's get this filibuster done and say, at the end of the day, that this is what we want. We're not asking to see the budget. We're not asking to talk about, necessarily, what the Speech from the Throne said, because I know a lot of times people are referencing that. We are asking for that date. If we can go back to August 2020, what were the thoughts and the decisions that led up to this? You can indicate it was the throne speech. That's great, and perhaps we can just hear the Prime Minister say that. That would be wonderful as well.
Let's be honest. Do I think we're going to get answers from the Prime Minister? We're probably not. We don't see that in question period. We don't see that anywhere. Let's just call it what it is. Let us at least ask these questions, and I think that's the one thing. We are being told that we'll not be allowed to ask the Prime Minister of Canada these questions Yes, he is the Prime Minister, but he is also a member of Parliament who chose to prorogue the Parliament of Canada during the biggest pandemic that our generation has ever seen.
Yes, of course, it was at a very difficult time, but rather than having every Liberal member of Parliament speak on his behalf, perhaps the Prime Minister could speak for himself and share that with parliamentarians.
Thank you very much.