Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm happy to give an explanation of this amendment. I think the amendment is clear and everybody has received it, but essentially it focuses on renewing invitations to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. This is relevant to the study, and the reason I'm asking to renew those invitations is that perhaps they couldn't come at the request of the committee last time. I think renewing the invitation would be a smart thing to do, especially given my speech, which was related to diversity and inclusion and the deep economic impacts that we've experienced as a result of COVID-19. It seems to me that having those ministers come back would be beneficial.
I will also add that the Speakers' Spotlight section of the motion concerns me, as does the section with the document requests and the request for records from WE Charity. I think these two sections of the motion overstep dramatically. Why would we be dragging folks into this conversation when there's no way they would have any information that's relevant to prorogation? I think it's a fishing expedition to ask these individuals to do this. They are not public representatives and they're not politicians. They're individual citizens.
Speakers' Spotlight is a private company, and they have no knowledge of prorogation. I don't think they even understand it. In many cases, we've seen that people outside of government don't even understand the process of prorogation and what it means. Very few people talk about it in my constituency, so I find that the topic, again, is not at the forefront of people's minds. I think we have to stop treating private citizens like they're under an investigation.
We've heard from the government House leader, who speaks on behalf of the government, and he gave really detailed testimony and an explanation—