On a point of order, Madam Chair, perhaps you can give us a framework, maybe, of what would be relevant and irrelevant. I'm wondering if there are timelines and things that have led up to prorogation. We seem to be talking a lot about things that....
I'm really happy that Ginette's husband is getting the vaccine—my husband has it as well—but I think we really need to talk about the actual motion, the prorogation motion. We are talking about everything we could see in every single standing committee right now, and although I think this is great, we are watching now almost 40 hours of filibustering. I'm just wondering when we're going to actually get to a vote or if we're going to just continue to do this.
I mean, honestly, if you're going to allow there to be anything said as long as it's under the Government of Canada, I question that. I really want to ensure that we're staying on the motion. As the weeks have progressed, I'm finding that we can talk about almost anything as long as it has to do with the Government of Canada and COVID. That is not what this study is. We are studying prorogation, not the response to COVID-19. We are studying the reasons for prorogation. That's what we should be getting back to. When the minister is here we can ask her those questions. Unfortunately, she has yet to even respond.