Okay. If you read my paper, it was essentially written before you started to meet. I'm not as familiar as you are with parliamentary procedure and the Standing Orders, and I'm not a lawyer.
I thought the only way these things would count would be in an election when they're made to be an issue. The government then feels the party that gets elected has its feet to the fire and this is what it's promised to do.
I've learned since then. I've found the comments to be confusing and confounding, but it's illuminating for all of us to hear all of the different perspectives.
I think you can do things with the Standing Orders. You can't keep the Prime Minister from going to the Governor General, but you could impose what I think have been called disincentives by Madam Jennings or Mr. Walsh.
You can pass a law. Any law you pass is part of the Constitution of Canada, in the sense that there's parliamentary supremacy. It comes under section 44, for example, when you revise the distribution of boundaries.
I like the proposal, which I have in the paper and which Russell also proposes, that the most effective way is for all the political actors, the leaders of all of the political parties, to agree that this is the way you act. It's not a matter of limiting the crown's reserved power. That is still there. The actors are limiting their own discretion in going to the Governor General. If all of the parties were to sign a document...I think New Zealand has something like that, where it's understood what happens.
You've put the Governor General in a dreadful position right now. I'm sorry.