Thank you, Chair.

I will be very brief. I just want everyone to know what the consequences will be as a result of a vote on Mr. Nater's subamendment, should we get to a vote today.

If the vote is defeated, the reality is that the Prime Minister will never appear before our committee. I'm reading the political tea leaves a little bit here in anticipating that Mr. Blaikie will be voting against Mr. Nater's subamendment, but that would have the effect, as I've just said, that the Prime Minister will never appear. He may be asked to appear, but he will not be compelled to appear. Only Mr. Nater's motion would have a possibility of compelling the Prime Minister to appear. Everyone should be very aware of that: a vote against Mr. Nater's subamendment means we will never see the Prime Minister at this committee to answer any questions about prorogation and his reasons for bringing forward prorogation when he did. That, in my view, would be extremely unfortunate. I'm choosing my words carefully. I would have other words to choose rather than “unfortunate” but, being observant of parliamentary decorum, I will leave it at that.

Colleagues, make no mistake. What the Liberals have been doing for the last three months during their filibuster is to prevent the Prime Minister from appearing at this committee. If this committee votes against Mr. Nater's subamendment, and in favour of Mr. Blaikie's subamendment, which we've already voted on and passed, the reality is the Prime Minister will never appear. We will never hear from him, and that is more than just unfortunate. Frankly, I think it's shameful.

That's the reality, colleagues. I'll cede my time to the next speaker.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Tom Lukiwski