Certainly a stumbling block for the New Democratic Party on this, setting aside for a moment our position on bringing it to the Canadian people, is the term “may”. The Prime Minister “may” call these consultations and he “may” accept the results. The difference between an oligarchy and democracy is the word “will”. He will be bound. I recognize that you're saying it would be almost inconceivable that he wouldn't feel bound, but he or she is not necessarily bound even to hold the consultation. It's part of a toolbox of choice.
I think if we're going to talk about legitimacy moving forward we have to put those words in there, even if they do face a constitutional challenge. It seems to me it leaves it open to--you didn't like the word--stealth, but I think stealth is the back door. Unless we're willing to say that this is a process that the people will have a say in to bring to the Prime Minister, then the overall legitimacy of a consultation process that may or may not happen or may or may not be accepted is not credible in the 21st century in a western democracy.