Thank you very much.
I welcome Mr. Brodie back to this committee. It's good to see you again.
In order to give full transparency, I should also say that I know Mr. Brodie well. I've known him for many years since he was formerly chief of staff to then prime minister Stephen Harper.
Now, colleagues, listen. We are charged with the responsibility of conducting a study on the reasons why this government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Quite frankly, the reasons are crystal clear, and we all know it.
The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in August of last year for one simple reason: to shut down the committees that were investigating the WE Charity scandal. It was successful; it was quite successful.
As one of our former witnesses, Professor Kathy Brock, said, it was a good strategy. The reality is that this was the singular reason for the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. It wasn't to hit the reset button. The Liberals will argue that prorogation was necessary because of the pandemic and the rapidly changing world order due to the pandemic and that, therefore, the government had to come up with a new throne speech, a new plan and a new agenda.
I suggest that this is absolutely wrong. That argument is weak because there was another option to prorogation. It's called the budget.
The government could have tabled a budget or, at the very least, a very detailed, in-depth and thorough financial and fiscal update, followed very closely by a budget. It did not need to prorogue. That was done for political reasons only: to curtail the political damage that was being done to the Prime Minister and his government. We know this. Every Canadian who has a passing interest in this issue knows it, and my friends on this committee from the Liberal ranks know it as well.
Professor Brodie, since we have limited time, I'll go directly to a question for you.
You reference in your opening remarks that you concur with my observation that this prorogation was done for what you consider to be political reasons, but that it did not have to be so. The Prime Minister could have prorogued literally a day before he recalled Parliament.
Can you expand on those thoughts a little and offer your opinions as to why the Prime Minister might have prorogued a good month prior to the recall of Parliament? Was it necessary to prorogue at that time?