Madam Chair, those dilatory motions are non-debatable, I know, but I did just want to say that I do think it's important that we find a resolution to the impasse that we have gotten into over Ms. Vecchio's motion before moving on. I do think that if the Prime Minister's own proposal for how to try to curb political abuses of prorogation is going to work, this committee has to get it right on the first go. We're the ones setting the precedent for how that mechanism works.
I've said before that I don't think it's the ideal mechanism. I think that a debate and vote in Parliament on prorogation is actually the best way to try to avoid political abuses of prorogation. However, this is what's currently on offer, and I am committed to trying to make it work as best as possible.
I don't think that a situation where PROC doesn't report back to the House is a great situation to be in. I do think we need to try to solve this impasse rather than simply move on, so that the record shows some kind of path forward for how to make this a meaningful mechanism rather than just a platitude that was written into the Standing Orders and that essentially leaves nothing unchanged.
In Mr. Turnbull's previous remarks, what came out for me very clearly was that the request for documents in Ms. Vecchio's motion is a sticking point for Liberal members of the committee. That's helpful information that may inform some other discussions that are taking place.
What I also heard, however, was an emphasis on the idea that somehow the desire to have the Prime Minister appear is just about the WE Charity scandal. It is also about the WE Charity scandal, but it's clearly.... We heard in testimony from people who believe there is a link between the political circumstances of the WE Charity scandal, and if not the ultimate decision to prorogue, which may have been in the works anyway, although we haven't seen any evidence of that.... I believe that when the government House leader was here and was asked when the government began asking questions about what a prorogation would look like and how far in advance of Bill Morneau's resignation did that take place, the answer was a matter of days, not a matter of weeks or months. It does show there is a connection of the timing there.
I won't belabour that point. What I'll say is that the real importance of having the Prime Minister come to this study, which is quite different from appearing on just about anything else, is that the Prime Minister alone is the decision-maker in respect of prorogation.
This isn't about how another minister made a decision within the department that it's their job to defend. It isn't even about a decision around the cabinet table. Ultimately, prorogation is a decision of the Prime Minister. We've heard that very clearly. In fact, Liberals on this committee have used that fact more to state a defence of the Prime Minister by saying that at the end of the day, it's up to him, and a prime minister doesn't even need to give a reason. We've heard that verbatim out of the mouths of Liberals at this committee. Fair enough. That's why it makes sense to hear from the Prime Minister.
If we want to take the emphasis off WE Charity—it doesn't go away because it is part of the story—and put it on prorogation, which is what the study is about.... Mr. Turnbull earlier said the opposition seems very focused on the question of prorogation. Indeed we are, because we're very focused on the topic of our study. I know that some Liberal members have kind of lost their way on relevance, but we are actually studying prorogation, so we are actually interested in prorogation, and we listen to the testimony, taking note of the fact that the Prime Minister is the decision-maker.
This study calls for the Prime Minister's presence in a very unique way that is not true in the general way that Ms. Shanahan was referring to when governments make decisions as a collective and ministers are there to represent not just their department and their own decision-making but the collective decision-making of government. For decisions around prorogation and also about dissolution, which is also an important and relevant topic at the moment, as Mr. Turnbull highlighted in his own remarks about the possibility of an election, these are powers that rest with the Prime Minister alone, and that's why it's really important to have the Prime Minister here. It is very much about prorogation.
Yes, there will be questions about WE Charity. I'm sure there will also be questions from committee members about the circumstances of the pandemic and how that contributed to a decision. The advantage of having the Prime Minister here is to get to know the mind of the decision-maker, because we all have our feelings about why prorogation happened, why it happened when it happened and why it lasted as long as it did.
The point of having the person at committee isn't the way we have an impartial jury at a trial. It's an accountability function. We test the decision-maker by asking questions and hearing their answers. The benefit of that isn't just for the parliamentarians at the committee.