I do not really have a question so much as an observation. There are consequences to proroguing the House, of course. In a situation such as yours, you must have felt powerless.
I do not think that the public initially understood what prorogation entailed. But there were many people who wanted to educate the public on the consequences of prorogation. There was a snowball effect. A Web site was set up by a young man, who appeared before us. A university professor appealed to his peers. Then there was a sense that people had a better understanding of the impact of proroguing the House and the reasons why it was used. We now see that the public feels it was inappropriate to prorogue the House in that way.
In response to an earlier question, you recommended shortening the period of time in question, but do you have other recommendations, for example, that certain committees continue to sit? Do you see that as a possible solution? I know that in some provinces, committees continue to meet during prorogation. When committees do not meet and certain pieces of legislation are not dealt with, it jeopardizes the public.