I do, on the subject of gridlock.
Professor Mendes, someone who you have certainly supported in the past, Scott Brison, speaking on the issue of gridlock, said:
Some people say this creates the potential for gridlock. The competitive friction between two Houses is not a bad thing. In fact, it can prevent politicians from doing dumb things unilaterally unchecked.
I think it's abundantly clear that the issue of gridlock, in and of itself, does not raise constitutional issues. But one person's gridlock is another person's check on decisions that we make in the House. The assertion we would make is that any potential so-called gridlock or any potential ability of the Senate, as a place of sober second thought, to say “We do not agree with what the House of Commons has put forward” is simply an enhancement of the democratic process.
Is there any comment on that, on the fact that I didn't hear anyone make this point? I'd like a confirmation, if my interpretation of what you're saying is in fact true, that the prospect of gridlock, so to speak, does not necessarily raise any constitutional issues in and of itself.