That was a suggestion by the clerk, Mr. Walsh, and I thought it was quite innovative. I thought he gave you a number of good ideas there.
Of course, and this is just my understanding—I have to defer to constitutional lawyers and other constitutional experts—what you put in your Standing Orders doesn't matter. It can't limit the Prime Minister, I don't believe, from going to the Governor General. When Parliament is reconvened, I can't see why you can't say there won't be second reading on any bills for 60 or 90 days. That could be something imposed. The prorogation will still have gone on. It's another issue related to dissolution.
Another thing struck me in the discussions. It came up a number of times about amending the Constitution. Section 44 refers to your power to change the executive Government of Canada, the Senate and the House of Commons. Now, provinces have used section 45 repeatedly and creatively since Confederation, which is a power they were given at Confederation--subsection 92(1); it's now section 45. You got that power in 1949, and there seems to be a hesitance.
I think if you pass a law—and I haven't read your fixed election date law, but I did hear the Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in it—why don't you make it explicit that you're doing it pursuant to section 44?
I know Nova Scotia did this when they had a conflict, when they expelled, I believe, an MLA in the late 1980s. His name was MacLean. He raised a charter case around this and the courts did not entertain it. They said this was an example of a province changing its own constitution. So that's one way if you are going to go the legal route. You can do both, but you can do it that way. In other words, you cite section 44 explicitly. I think that would reinforce it. I think that would give the Governor General something of a card in terms of her discussions with the Prime Minister. Her job is partly to advise, warn, and consult.