Mr. Chair, we can see you're not infallible.
I want to turn to Professor Adams. Just a couple of quotes from your brief, at the very end:
There are good reasons, beyond the allure of tradition, for keeping our constitutional conventions as they are—unwritten, flexible, and the subject of occasional controversy and disagreement.
Unwritten constitutional conventions similarly enable the Governor General to respond to new and unanticipated situations moored to principle but not constrained by prescribed text.
What struck me was not so much on our side of it, if you will, the House, but with the GG. I was born in 1954, so my mum's generation was still incredibly deferential to the monarch, and still is--not just the respect we all have, but that deference, it's almost mystical. The generation following me has very little of that left. So by leaving things uncertain but still maintaining an appointed GG, how do we square that with democratic principles?
I'm once removed here, but I want to get your sense of the relationship between responsible government, accountability, and democracy as the foundation for all our actions, and yet at the very top of our government pyramid sits someone who is an appointee.
I'm thinking of the ridiculousness of a whole country sitting by its TV sets captivated by a pair of doors. We watched for two hours. Then when it was all over we didn't even get an explanation from the person who made the decision. I'm having a great deal of trouble, and I wouldn't mind your thoughts on how we are doing all this at the same time. We are talking about responsible government, accountability, democracy, and then we have the sight of someone who is appointed making a decision about who the government is and we don't even get an explanation.
I'd like all three of you to give me your thoughts on that, please.