It's true.
Anyway, I read this many years ago and very much enjoyed it, and I'm sure I'll enjoy what you come out with when you do your update.
I was comparing your notes with regard to the Governor General's powers with those comments that have been made by some other authors. For example, I have a paper here by Bradley Miller, from the University of Western Ontario, on conventions relating to the prorogation of Parliament.
You talked about one of the things that I want to ask you about, but I'm not sure you're conclusive in what you arrive at here. It is dealing with whether Governors General or Lieutenant Governors, as the case may be, should be regarded as having some degree of genuine discretionary powers, or simply as people who could be following a rule book and it almost doesn't matter who they have in there-- they just have to find the right rule and then follow it through.
It's almost as complicated as the rules of golf, in that there's a rule for absolutely everything you do, and presumably every golfer should be able to do the same thing.
You give an example from 1986, when the Nova Scotia Supreme Court made a ruling that a Lieutenant Governor could have rejected some advice, which suggests that he could have rejected or accepted it. Maybe I'll just ask the question that way. What is your sense? Is there actual discretion in situations such as the prorogation situation?