Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's quite clear that the prorogation sought by the government was politically motivated and tied to the WE Charity situation.
Mr. Turnbull, the honourable Liberal member, tried to tell us that the two throne speeches were different. Other than the part that involves interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction—which all the provinces and Quebec came out against—I don't really see anything new.
I'd like to hear the views of the two witnesses, since they are both experts on the issue before us, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.
Were there any significant differences in the new throne speech that would lead us to believe the government had a valid reason to prorogue Parliament? Is it clear from the throne speech that the government reset its agenda?