You are right, they enrich our discussions. We try to find witnesses who complement the issue being studied, who have diverse points of view.
We are studying this issue because we found that the use of prorogation on two occasions in such a short period of time was not justified, that the reasons given did not convince the members of the opposition. Interpreters use the word “people” a lot; I am not sure whether that conveys Mr. Reid's idea when he said that the people did not want a coalition.
In any event, I know that the recent prorogations left a very bad taste in the mouths of Quebeckers. The prorogations were seen as an abuse of power, a constitutional power that was misused, an instrument of partisan politics rather than a democratic tool to break a stalemate or renew a legislative agenda.
I listened to Benoît Pelletier, a professor at the University of Ottawa. He determined that we cannot limit the use of prorogation because the Constitution clearly says that it would not be feasible. Instead, he suggested that we make changes to strengthen the legislative branch, Parliament's authority, the authority of parliamentarians in the executive, in other words, the government. He noted that, over time, executive authority, the authority of the government, increased while the authority of Parliament decreased. It is obvious in a number of issues that are the subject of considerable debate by Parliament. Access to information is one example of a very contentious issue right now.
What is your reaction to that? To sum up Benoît Pelletier's position, it is necessary to strengthen Parliament's authority and do more to limit the authority of the executive. Do you see that as a possible solution, one that would give us more control over the misuse of prorogation, without requiring an amendment to the Constitution?