--I would muster up the courage to ask a couple of questions.
First of all, I want to thank you, Professor. I envy those who were your students. I'm sure they got the message, whatever it was you were conveying. You're an excellent teacher. Thank you for that.
I have two questions, if I have time.
First, I'm surprised no one has gotten back to this. The previous speaker, Professor Mendes, was putting forward the notion—his opinion—that under our Constitution, the Speaker has the right to provide advice to the GG on behalf of a majority of Parliament where the Speaker, or that majority, would believe the advice is contrary to that of the Prime Minister.
It took us all by surprise, because there were letters signed by the leaders, in the one crisis we got into, that, should the GG not allow the prorogation, there was a good chance of a majority to be found.
To our understanding--we don't know for sure yet, because a lot of this happens in the dark--we don't think that letter ever got in front of the GG. It could have changed history if it had. Therefore, the question of whether or not our Speaker would have the constitutional right, upon a motion of the House, to convey an opinion to the GG, where a decision is being put in front of him or her by the Prime Minister, that may be contrary, would be allowed. Had that happened and the letter been forwarded, who knows how history would have turned out?
Could you give us your thoughts on Professor Mendes' contention that this constitutional right exists for the majority of Parliament and the Speaker?