Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity to ask the government House leader the question of whether it was really necessary for the government to prorogue the session.
I was interested in the government House leader's response, which was quite simple. He responded that it was the process and that it was just the way in which things happened, as if there was nothing outside the norm. It is pretty tough to sell that this is in fact the reason why it was prorogued.
Many individuals, including me, believe that the Conservatives, and particularly the Prime Minister, did not want to come back to the floor of the House of Commons to be questioned about the PMO and and how it was engaged with the whole $90,000 with Nigel Wright and Mr. Duffy and all the allegations that were out there. Therefore, in order to avoid having to come back in September, the Prime Minister prorogued the session. It is interesting that he picks a date on which he is in Europe, again avoiding accountability on what is a very important issue.
Could the member provide his thoughts or some of his comments in terms of the real need? Was there a need to even prorogue the session?