I can answer that.
First of all, it is important to understand that the Constitution uses minimal wording. It represents the bones, and the constitutional conventions flesh it out. For example, the actual position of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867. It is mentioned just once in the Constitution Act, 1982, and only to indicate that the Prime Minister must convene a meeting of the first ministers of the provinces. But we cannot deny that the role of the Prime Minister exists in Canada's Constitution; it exists through convention.
Through this debate, we can specify the conditions in which the power pursuant to the prerogative of the Prime Minister can be exercised, in other words, the power to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. What I tried to focus on were the various ways of limiting that power and ensuring that it reflects the will of the elected majority as closely as possible.
I pointed out that the executive branch, as it is currently constituted, does not have democratic legitimacy, except indirectly. In other words, its democratic legitimacy is based on the simple notion that the person with the executive power has the confidence of the elected members. It is not a system whereby someone is elected to head the executive branch, over and above the rest. Nor is it a system whereby the executive branch has legitimacy pursuant to royal confidence. Today, confidence comes solely from the elected members.
In short, it relates to what we are trying to do. Through various means, I think we can limit that discretionary power. We are not working in a vacuum, we are truly in the process of defining the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended other than through formal amendment. There are also a number of possible options.