Thank you very much.
I'll be very brief, but I want to make a couple of points, particularly in relation to Mark's opening comments. Number one, I want to underscore what Mrs. Vecchio has said: that it is inevitable that we will be receiving the order of reference.
Mark, it is not the same analogy. It is not like the analogy that you used that committees shouldn't be allowed, or that it's outside of their scope, to study legislation that has not yet been introduced. This is not legislation. This is an order of reference that's going to be laid upon the table within 20 days. In other words, it has to be done before the 28th, and it will come automatically to the procedure and house affairs committee. It is perfectly reasonable for this committee to enter into a prestudy of a document that it knows it will receive. That's far different from what you had used as an example, which was that we would be guessing whether a piece of legislation was going to be introduced in the House. This is not legislation; it's an order of reference that will be coming to PROC once the document is laid upon the table, which will occur before October 28.
I suppose the only point, as Karen already mentioned, that could curtail that is if the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament once again to prevent PROC from entering into an examination that it is fully within its right to enter into.
Remember, Mark, that one of the fundamental tenets of Parliament is that committees are the masters of their own agenda, and if this committee determines that it wishes to enter into a prestudy of a document that will inevitably come to its attention, it has the perfect right to do so. No wordsmithing on your part can change that fundamental tenet.
Finally, I would also underscore what I said the last time we spoke together, Mark, which is that you continue to make the argument that Canadians are concerned about COVID-19 and their health and safety and their economic well-being, and I agree with all of that. I totally agree, but that does not prevent a parallel stream of a study within committee from going forward. This committee will not be preventing the government from entering into any pieces of legislation that it wants to bring forward. This committee's study of prorogation will not curtail or hinder the government from bringing forward legislation to enhance the financial well-being of Canadians. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the House and the legislation the government may wish to proceed with. This is a separate committee study, and it is within the mandate of this committee to enter into that study should it so desire.
Now, ultimately it will be up to this committee to make a determination as to whether or not the motion brought forward by Mrs. Vecchio will proceed. I will wait until we hear the results of that, perhaps in just a few moments.
Mark, it is within the purview of this committee to entertain the motion and support the motion if it wishes, and to further our examination of the reasons behind the government's desire to prorogue Parliament. It is not out of order. It is completely within the scope of this committee's mandate and it is in order.
Thank you, Chair.