Oh, if all parties agree, terrific. I would prefer not to have legislation, if all parties agree.
Once you get into legislation, you risk two things. One is that you risk appeals to the court to interpret the legislation, and in this kind of matter, with all due respect to our judges in Canada, including the nine on the Supreme Court, I don't think they should be called upon to settle these disputes, which arise typically soon after an election. To be doing the sort of Bush-Gore act and not knowing who's governing, while huge cases are argued before the Supreme Court of Canada for weeks or for months, sounds to me like a bad idea.
The other thing is that once you get into legislation, you may be on the edge of at least an argument that you're somehow changing the powers of the crown by law, by a formal statute. That gets you into the constitutional amendment issue that any change in the powers of the monarchy, the crown, the crown's representative in Canada, requires unanimous consent of all the provinces.
I'm not saying it would automatically, but you would get people saying, “That statute looks to us like a disguised attempt to amend the Constitution by law.”