I will be brief on this. I don't have anything to add on the second question, other than the fact that it does point to one of the reasons we have the process of constitutional amendment that we do, requiring provincial participation in the process.
With regard to the first, I'm assuming that the reason it's not necessary or has not been put into the bill to state whether the Prime Minister has obligations or not is simply the assumption that once you have the electoral process operating, public pressure will force the Prime Minister to follow the expression of public will. In other words, the assumption, I think, in Bill C-20 as it's currently worded, for all the criticisms I make, is that public pressure will create the convention that a Prime Minister will always have to follow whoever is nominated by the consultative process.