I think that position's ridiculous. Given what I've read, I can tell you I would be very pleased to take part in a good-faith debate with some of these witnesses or with opposition members. However, it's increasingly hard for me to give them the benefit of the doubt, first of all, because they've made their decision even before appearing before the committee. What could I do about that?
The member continued by saying there was a singular reason for doing so. The record should show that the member was referring to the prorogation. He found it disturbing that he and other members of his party, and of the opposition, could sit here and say they would examine the prorogation matter and get to the bottom of things. To shed light on what?
Madam Chair, it seems they already made their decision long ago. The decision of some was already made even before they testified. We nevertheless listened to them, and we nevertheless received some very good evidence. We heard from 12 witnesses, all equally expert and equally partisan, and we listened to them. We asked good questions, thanks to the democratic system we have here, and each of the parties was granted the same number of minutes. We heard a broad range of testimony, and we could therefore prepare a comprehensive report today.
I want to make the following point for the record. The member I'm referring to regularly argues fiercely against this government, even going so far as to tell the Leader of the Government in the House, during the previous meeting that I attended, that he felt sorry for him. That same member advanced an entirely contrary argument in 2010. The situation was different in 2010; today, he feels sorry.
In that year, this committee conducted a very similar study when the Conservative government prorogued Parliament. At the time, the member represented the former riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. As you can see, he is an experienced member because he was already a member in 2010. At the time, I was a municipal councillor. When the Conservative government prorogued Parliament, he argued that prorogation was a fairly common and routinely used procedure.
Parliament has been prorogued three times by the Conservatives and only once by the Liberals, and, in that case, during an international health crisis. I would emphasize the word “routinely.” Today, however, the opposition parties contend that this prorogation was a kind of abuse of Parliament. Today, they're trying to prove, supported by examples, that it was an abuse and an extremist measure. However, they still forget the pandemic aspect. It's that aspect that troubles me a little more. It's as a result of that aspect that my human side has trouble accepting the idea that we said we did it for nothing. It's as though there were no pandemic and we didn't need to take a step back.
It takes a lot of work to prepare a throne speech and an economic statement. I heard here that we could have turned on a dime, stopped for two days, prepared a throne speech and presented it in public. However, that takes hours and weeks of work. You have to mobilize all members and employees of the Prime Minister's Office. You have to conduct consultations. When you prorogue Parliament, you do so to take a step back, not to take a vacation. It involves six weeks of intensive work during which we review every line of the programs we've put in place, every flaw in the system.
And there were some flaws in my riding, and they're still there. No system is perfect. The prorogation let us take a step back, gather strength and make good decisions. Now you want to invite everyone in turn. All that's missing from the motion tabled is the pope…