Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
We're here mostly because of poor judgment from the Prime Minister. At the heart of this scandal is an almost billion-dollar sole-sourced contract to WE Charity, which had ties to the Prime Minister and former minister of finance. It was poor judgment to get involved in an outfit that had paid over half a million dollars to the Prime Minister's mother. The poor judgment demonstrated by that transaction ultimately led to the proroguing of Parliament.
We talked about the Governor General's role in this. This is another poor judgment by the Prime Minister, getting involved and personally vouching for the Governor General so that she would not go through the proper vetting process. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for $140,000 at minimum for the rest of her life, which is also poor judgment by Prime Minister.
We had a Governor General who was indebted to the Prime Minister for vouching for her as much as she was the wrong choice, but was indebted nevertheless to the Prime Minister. We talked about the role of the Governor General, who in the past has granted proroguing rights to the situation but it isn't automatic. It still could be that in the future—although it would be precedent setting—it could be declined.
I would like to get the professor's view on this. In what situations would the Governor General not grant a proroguing of Parliament?