Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My colleagues will no doubt be pleased to hear that I don't intend to speak for very long. However, I would like to give you my point of view on the motion, and about the comments I've heard from my colleagues. I know that the member for La Prairie has already made his own comments, but as we are two different people, I'll allow myself to make my own.
I heard some arguments to the effect that some people have already testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I find it difficult to understand how this argument can hold water, because the people who have already testified before the Standing Committee on Finance did so before prorogation. Here today, we're asking for them to give evidence about prorogation. That's why their presence would not be entirely pointless simply because they previously testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.
We're being told that it's pointless to have more witnesses appear, and that we've already made up our minds. The evidence heard was mainly circumstantial or based on an analysis of prorogation criteria. It's relevant from that standpoint, because it could give us an idea of what the conclusions of an eventual report would be. However, as my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor mentioned, the prerogative for prorogation belongs to the Prime Minister. He is well aware of the factors that underpin his decision, hence the relevance of his testimony.
We've also been told that it's not relevant to have Minister Chagger come, or chief of staff Katie Telford. I think you'd have to be deliberately blind to say that it is frivolous to suggest that prorogation was used to hide the WE Charity scandal. It's certainly possible. The party in power may not be happy about it, but if I were in their shoes, I'd be uneasy about saying it's completely frivolous. Given the context, evidence from those affected by the WE Charity scandal definitely becomes relevant, even if only as circumstantial evidence.
What I was hearing about the very idea of a study of prorogation almost made me fearful. For example, someone said that it's the Prime Minister's prerogative and that we ought not to challenge it unduly, because the Prime Minister can do it and if he wants to do it then let him do it.
Moreover, in his testimony, professor Daniel Turp Said that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom had rendered a decision in the fall of 2019 ruling to the effect that even when there is a prerogative, it's a power that requires limitations. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom came to a decision, indicating that there had been an abuse of power and ruled the prorogation at issue unlawful, thus cancelling it. In such a context, I think that the subject is altogether relevant, not only for what has just happened, but also for the future. After all, people on the government side mentioned that there had been four prorogations under the Conservative government. That's completely pertinent in the exercise of democracy. According to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, prorogation cannot be exercised irrespectively of Parliament's capacity to perform its constitutional and legislative duties. It's altogether relevant to ask whether this prorogation was legitimate. Doing so would make it possible to establish criteria for the future, in the event of another prorogation.
Those then are my comments on what I heard from my colleagues. I now gladly turn the floor over to whomever is next.