Thank you very much for that clarification, Madam Chair.
Thanks as well to Ms. Vecchio for raising that point. I'm still learning, and I very much welcome any clarification.
I received the motion today and I read it briefly before joining the committee meeting. The witness list is quite long: the Prime Minister, the Leader in the House, who has already testified, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, former members, citizens and so on. I can't name them all.
I would like to point out that the Prime Minister appeared before Canadians at a press conference and explained why the government had had to prepare for a potential second wave of the pandemic that was under way. He had to review his priorities relative to those he had announced in the 2019 throne speech, and he set other legislative priorities.
In other words, we had to reset the parliamentary agenda. That's somewhat what I've been explaining to you from the start. We really pressed the reset button. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer than that. He organized a press conference, and he clearly expressed that to the public. He also told all members in the House. He wanted to have those priorities front and centre in the context of the pandemic crisis.
As we said, and as academics and officials have also stated, the prorogation mechanism was justified. No other mechanism could reset the agenda in that kind of situation. The Prime Minister therefore decided to seek leave from the Governor General to prorogue and end the Parliament. Previous governments have also used this measure for much longer periods and for far less valid reasons.
It appears that, in wanting to invite the Prime Minister back, opposition members did not consider the severity of the crisis Canada was facing. We had just emerged from a brutal first wave. A second wave arrived, and the government went into crisis management mode literally to save—and I would emphasize that word—as many lives as possible, to support Canadians during an unprecedented crisis. That was a priority; that's what we should take into consideration. We must address the points that I indicated at the start of my speech. In other words, we must focus on other extremely important matters. We abandoned them during the election campaign and election process.
If my memory serves me, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, monopolized all public health authorities. We were virtually certain from the outset that there would be a second wave. How could we have requested prorogation at that point without living through what we did in our respective constituencies during that new pandemic wave? We experienced various problems, we saw they were serious, and we looked for solutions.
According to some experts, we could have prorogued Parliament when the pandemic started. However, since we didn't have a crystal ball, we couldn't see the future. I had to make changes in my riding and adapt to the situation. Some of the improvements could not have been made if the session had ended when the pandemic started.
As I have said and now repeat, it would've been a good idea to prorogue Parliament at the start of the pandemic, and it was also a good idea when we made the decision. It would still be a good decision today. This kind of process enables us to take a step back and review the measures in place.
Every time we make a change, we hear that prorogation made it possible to establish the mechanism that enables us to make those kinds of changes. Even now, members rise in the House saying it takes a lot of time to get a telephone line. However, you can hire 2,000 persons if you want, but you still have to train them. You have to find them the necessary equipment and help them settle in. Prorogation helps you make those decisions and take a step back so you can come back stronger.