Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I am very pleased to participate in this committee meeting. I want to greet all my colleagues, especially my colleague across the way, the minister responsible for Quebec and Government House Leader.
Madam Chair, the minister forgot two fundamental points in his speech. First, he forgot to say that everything that the Prime Minister said in his Speech from the Throne could very well have been said in a statement in the House of Commons. Indeed, there was absolutely nothing new that merited prorogation and a Speech from the Throne, since, as he said, the government and Parliament were already working to address the issues related to the pandemic. There was no need to prorogue Parliament and no need for a Speech from the Throne. A statement by the Prime Minister in the House would have done the trick. So why did he prorogue Parliament?
Let's review the events, Madam Chair.
On August 19, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was studying the WE charity scandal, was scheduled to receive the Speakers' Spotlight group, which had contracts with the WE movement and the Prime Minister's family. This group was scheduled to testify on August 19. However, as luck would have it, it was on August 18 that the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament and dissolve this committee and the work of Parliament. Yet Speakers' Spotlight had stated that it had in the past held discussions with the Prime Minister's family and the Prime Minister himself.
Was the minister aware of the discussions between Speakers' Spotlight and the Prime Minister's family?