I just want to return to the whole idea of criteria of confidence. Just as an observation, one of the things that people were concerned with most recently was the vote we had in front of us certainly on the Afghan mission. It was stated beforehand that it would be a confidence vote. It's evolving, I guess, and you could ponder on it, but it was also stated that regardless of the vote, the executive power would kick in. So I think that's something we're still grappling with, if you will.
I'll just turn to the whole idea of setting criteria, because it was mentioned in your brief that this would be problematic. I want to explore that a bit more. Some would say that some of the reforms we're engaging in.... Again, I support this, and I think it's part of democratic reform; I'm simply saying that it's not the end, certainly.
If we're going to have reform done--and we see this in Senate reform—without engaging in constitutional change, this over time can be problematic. I simply look at Eugene Forsey's opinion in the past, that our Constitution is something we need to respect and to be vigilant about. I guess what I was saying before, and my question directly, is that this is a pragmatic approach, which I support for the short term, but should we not address it in our Constitution at some point? And is there anything in front of us that would preclude us from at some point addressing constitutional change in this area, or maybe in Senate reform when we get to that?