Mr. Chairman, I'm winging it a bit here.
I always thought the Governor General, constitutionally, was required or expected to get legal advice from the Privy Council Office, not necessarily in private, away from the Prime Minister. But it could be that she would go to the Privy Council Office to get her legal advice on the question put to her, or any question, but certainly the question or demand put to her by the Prime Minister. And I don't suppose she has to take that advice in the presence of the Prime Minister. She could do it privately.
Going to outside parties I think was a bit of a departure. At least to the extent that we learned about it for the first time, it seems to be a departure. The reason I say this is because I've always thought the Governor General's position is one that has to maintain its political neutrality, and its relationship to the government of the day is one of following the advice of the government of the day. To go to outside parties is to distance yourself from the government of the day and to give yourself a source of advice that could run against the advice of the Prime Minister of the day, whereas the Privy Council Office of course is part of the government that the Prime Minister heads, so advice from the Privy Council Office is arguably consistent with advice from the Prime Minister. The advice from the Privy Council Office is not about whether to prorogue or not, but the legalities of what her role is and that sort of stuff.
To go to an outside party surprised me. There are others who think that's perfectly fine and that she's entitled to do it. It surprised me. I would have thought that she ought to have taken the legal advice from the Privy Council Office and limited it to that, but that's just my own view.