Again, I've heard the discussion, it's the Standing Orders, legislation, or both. I think the whole point of it is to try to establish a convention. And as I said in my presentation, you can't simply create a convention and expect it to be a convention. Conventions are created through routine use, that sort of thing. I see introducing Standing Orders like that more as a symbolic demonstration of what Canadians expect from the government. And certainly, yes, I understand there may be points where prorogation may need to be called, and so to not keep the rules too rigid or anything like that.
I haven't put too much thought into the idea of incentives. I remember hearing them talked about. There were disincentives as well, and I know that there was some critique as to that, and I agree. What needs to happen is just this establishment of new conventions, and part of that is this process that's going on in this room right now, the discussion of it, is taking the issue seriously. So even if nothing ends up changing, if there's no legislation introduced or the Standing Orders aren't changed, or anything like that, the last few months have shown that any prime minister who might give the appearance of misusing the power of prorogation will do so at their own risk.