—well-being, and advances the interests of Canadians.
However, we are in a political world and political environment and I understand that some members want to turn it political. I actually liked her summary. I wish the motion were reduced to her summary where she said that we just want to study the cause of prorogation. I think if the motion were worded that way, I could see how it would fit within the scope of this committee and how it would fall on the shoulders of this committee to study it, and I actually wouldn't have a problem with it.
The way the details are written in this committee...and I have no doubt that many other committees will also be pursuing the line of looking into WE and the decisions behind WE. I'm sure there will be other committees doing this. I just really don't understand how we can be asked to vote on a motion that is clearly way outside the scope of this committee, especially when I know there are other committees that will be doing this study. I feel this motion has gone way beyond what is expected of us as members of PROC.
I would like to encourage Mrs. Vecchio to perhaps reword it to the way she explained it, in noting that she wants to study the prorogation. I think that's fine. That sounds reasonable and within the mandate of PROC, and perhaps she could remove all of the other paragraphs after that because they really create an unfortunate line of inquiry outside the scope of this committee.
I ask my colleagues as well to be responsible and thoughtful about what this committee is going to be studying and the work that is before us. The question of prorogation, I think, is legitimate and I think it's fair for our opposition to ask about it, but I fail to understand how all of the other aspects mentioned within the motion fall within the scope of this committee.