I've seen a lot of change within the basic model of the Westminster system of government. Different parliaments have, for example, instituted new committees that they didn't have in the past.
Professor Franks mentioned that this was the case in Canada as well, in the 1960s, for example, with reforms to the committee system. You've seen new analytic institutions and changes to the structure of the estimates and so on. I would say there's nothing inherently wrong with the Westminster system. It's just a system that comes from a starting point that puts Parliament at a severe disadvantage.
It is up to you, in a way, to reshape that system. I've tried to highlight some of the variables that you could try to shift if you wanted give Parliament more of an opportunity to make a difference. I'm not saying that it will always use that opportunity—that is partly due to party politics—but what could be done is very clear, I think. It is about the formal powers of the parliament. It is about executive flexibility once the budget has been approved, the strength of committees, the timing of the budget process, and access to analytic capacity. Any of these variables can be changed, even within the Westminster framework, and we have seen that in the past.
Some of the things that I recommended in my comments I think are very well possible within the basic framework of a Westminster type of system.