Thank you very much, Ms. Vecchio. Sometimes I get carried away with emotion. When I dive into a file, I get down to the bottom of it.
However, I can say that everything I've told you is directly related to the prorogation. Canadians and I myself have never been as sensitive to seniors as in this pandemic or in the history of Canada. Prorogation was also one of the measures we took for seniors and the general public. It was effective in helping us take a step back so that we could move forward more effectively. Everything I've explained to you to this point is related to the prorogation.
On January 28, 2021, at start of the meetings on the prorogation study, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan said the following in his preamble, before putting his question to Dr. Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Harper's former chief of staff, “We are charged with the responsibility of conducting a study on the reasons why this government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.”
Remember, I just told you he is Mr. Harper's former chief of staff. Mr. Lukiwski continued, saying, “Quite frankly, the reasons are crystal clear, and we all know it.”
At the last meeting, on February 16, Mr. Lukiwski continued to show his bias and inherent partiality on this issue, declaring on the basis of no study or approval by this committee:It is clear to everyone in this committee, and I know it's clear to you as well, there was only one reason for prorogation being called in early August…
As a member, when I read that, I had to stand up, have a glass of water and take a deep breath.
Remember what we were going through in my constituency and yours in August. The weather was beautiful, we were having a bit of a break, there was some fear and apprehension, and we weren't safe from a second wave. Life was very hard for the general public.
I respect the testimony of an expert who comes and tells us that there was only one reason to prorogue Parliament, and we will take it into account in the report, but let me tell you that I happened to read other testimony stating that the prorogation assisted in making decisions and in taking a step back so we could move forward more effectively.
When he says there was only one reason, does the member also think that prosecutors should be able to sit on the jury and vote even before an investigation?
Fortunately, he's not the one who…