I don't take offence, Madam Chair. I don't take offence because I would never mislead anyone intentionally or even unintentionally. Obviously, I'm not perfect, but I'm really reporting what the media is reporting, which is that the Prime Minister has been cleared of any conflict of interest, which is what I just read.
If you want me to refer you to the article in the media, I'm sure you could look it up yourself, Ms. Vecchio. I'm just reporting to the committee what I've just heard. This is breaking news, and it's good news. It also, I think, speaks to the heart of what we've been debating for quite some time: that opposition parties have been really adamant about sticking to wanting to hear from the Prime Minister on prorogation. Really, from my perspective anyway, it seems like that really centres on an argument that somehow prorogation was used to cover up something nefarious, so I think this is relevant.
What I've been trying to say all along is that we've tabled a report for the first time ever that gives a rationale for prorogation, and this is a decent rationale. It really makes sense. It's supported by evidence. The timing was right. We could quibble about whether the timing could have been better, but I really feel that the timing was right. It did give the government an opportunity to reset, to re-evaluate and to essentially move forward in a way that was more relevant to the changing context within a global pandemic. That, to me, seems very rational.
We've been staring in the rear-view mirror, looking at prorogation and studying that, talking about that for quite some time. I really feel at this point—and many of the members on our side have said this in the past—that we really have important business before us. We just had Bill C-19 referred to us from the House. I know this was voted on. I think it wasn't quite a unanimous vote, but it was very close to it. I think there was only one member who voted nay on that bill.
I think we have important work to do that really, to me, is pressing, given the fact that opposition parties have numerous times over the last month or two voted that they don't have confidence in our government, and this could trigger an election.
I think that the health and safety of Canadians within a general election should be our highest priority right now. I really think that Bill C-19 deserves our attention. It is within our mandate as a committee to look at anything to do with the election of members of Parliament. I really think that it would serve the interests of Canadians. I really feel that leadership in government should always be focused on the interests of Canadians, especially during a global pandemic when opposition parties seem to be trying to take down the government or at least are threatening to do so from time to time. To me, this could very well put our democratic process at risk. Canadians' ability to participate in a fair and democratic process could be jeopardized to some degree. By that, I mean if the Chief Electoral Officer doesn't have the powers that are within Bill C-19, which are adaptation powers. There are several, I think, around long-term care. We've all expressed concerns, and we did some great work on studying this. However, I think we need to move on from this particular debate and get into the work on Bill C-19.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we would.... Ms. Vecchio's motion would still be on the table to return to.
Given all this rationale that I think is quite substantial in my view, I move that the committee proceed to study Bill C-19.