Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, I was, but I would point out as well, though, that the number of sitting days that Parliament lost overall was cause for concern. Just the general propensity in the pandemic of the inability of Parliament to sit as often as it might want to was an issue.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. I was following quite closely. My concern, though, is that—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Because they were seeking in-person sessions, I believe.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would say that it was regrettable, but not necessarily abusive.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary—not in terms of the procedure itself, nor in terms of the length.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Certainly, if one were trying to identify the clearest reason for prorogation, a significant event such as a pandemic could be, and probably in this case would be, offered as the most legitimate reason.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, absolutely.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It does.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would say it was hardball, but as you'll see at the end of my remarks, I also point out that there may be a justification where the government feels that the Commons or parties in the Commons are engaged in an equal degree of hardball. You can ask, was that effort to oust the g

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, sir. Or in 2009, you mean, sir?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Prorogations as a routine procedure, you mean, in a non-controversial setting, correct?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, I'm aware of prorogation. I would point out, though, I think an interesting facet. A number of people have raised the number of days in Canadian prorogations. We should also look to the United Kingdom, where they are oftentimes about a week long. We should do a comparative

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think you can certainly run out the clock. I would simply point out that there's an interesting facet here. If you recall, in the last Parliament efforts to shut down the justice committee around another controversy were seen by the government as a means of getting out of a pro

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I would say fundamentally that this is what's of interest. Political parties have an interest, I would say, in this. I suspect it should be in the government's interests to simply allow the committees to do their work because, whatever is there, for transparency sunlight is often

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Sir, I would simply point out that a number of reforms have been proposed, some of them trying to create a wedge between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. That may be one avenue that we could pursue. Constitutionally, I suspect that would fall apart before the courts.