Okay.
I'd like to ask you a few questions.
Professor Peter Russell appeared earlier before this committee, and he had a number of points. His point 11 states:
On March 17 of this year, the House of Commons passed a motion, moved by the Hon. Jack Layton, requiring that the Prime Minister seek the consent of the House of Commons before advising a prorogation of more than seven days.
Professor Russell goes on to say:
This motion cannot be regarded as a constitutional convention, because it was opposed by the Prime Minister and members of the government caucus. One of the key actors involved in advising prorogation does not feel bound by the Layton motion.
But then he says:
But that motion could be an important step towards establishing a constitutional convention, if it becomes the basis for discussing with government members in this committee or a special committee the possibility of an agreement on conditions that should apply to prime ministerial advice to prorogue.
I'd like to know, do you agree that notwithstanding the fact that a majority of members of the House of Commons adopted that motion, it does not in fact constitute a constitutional convention?