Oh, gosh, I haver back and forth on that. I could live with it. As you can appreciate, the only time it would be significant would be in a minority Parliament. Of course, those are the only times when prorogation becomes a dirty word.
I always wind up in this by saying that the more we leave to the good sense of the electorate, and the more that politicians of all stripes are trembling in their boots at the thought of how what they do affects the electorate, the better we are as a country. That's hyperbole; I hope you'll forgive me.
I'm uneasy about either legislation or Standing Orders. I think it's like a split decision in the House. I have to vote with the noes on this. In other words, don't change it; keep the discussion going. I think I'd wind up arguing we should not alter the present system, but we should make sure that our processes of Parliament--and this is a very good one--educate the media, the public, parliamentarians as to the issues and implications of prorogation so that we can understand it better.
You will recall that I gave the example of the 2003 prorogation as a non-issue. That has been so misunderstood in the press that I find it quite depressing that this is brought out time and time again as an example of an abusive prorogation. If it was an abuse, it was an abuse of the adjournment, and the adjournment was on a motion of the House because it wasn't in accordance with the normal Standing Orders.