Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Professor, for your interesting presentation.
I have a similar question that I asked Mr. White before you.
Short of a constitutional amendment, it looks as if we're not going to be able to put a firm blockage in in terms of thou shalt and thou shalt not. However, we have options around Standing Orders and around potential legislation. But at the end of the day, what's really going to work will be a sense among the Canadian people about what they believe is acceptable and unacceptable.
I take your point about the lack of civics lessons on the part of people coming out of our schools. Never mind prorogation, they don't even know the difference between minority and majority, and they want to talk about our president and everything else. It's incredibly frustrating. But given all that, do you think the political disincentives--because we can build in procedural disincentives--will be strong enough to achieve this? Or are we kidding ourselves, in that while this is paramount today, in five years this could all seem like ancient history? And if we flipped into a majority government and didn't have prorogation as a major issue, would we lose that? In other words, if we don't get it right in the rules, people will be saying it isn't right, that we're breaking the Standing Orders.
What I'm likening it to is the law the government passed about elections and then turned around and certainly violated the spirit of its own law, and for the most part the Canadian people weren't bothered.