That's fair enough. It seems to me the related question is if you're going to do something, you have to say, what is the problem we are trying to remedy? What is that problem? Is the problem that a Prime Minister who may or may not enjoy the confidence of the House seeks to avoid facing the House? Is that the problem? If that is the problem, then I say that is dealt with by the reserve powers of the Governor General, and there's no necessity to try to deal with a problem that is not a problem.
If, alternatively, the problem is one where the Prime Minister does enjoy the confidence of the House, there's no question that the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the House, but we're going to subject the ability to seek prorogation to seven days, then you are immediately throwing this issue of prorogation into a major constitutional confrontation, because any request will immediately force the House into a motion of confidence on the request. That will be the consequence. Therefore, now, any time the Prime Minister, who has enjoyed the confidence, there has been no doubt, wants to make a request, the matter is going to become a matter of confidence and there could be an election over a prorogation of two months. You say, what's the problem? Maybe there is no problem. But we don't know.
I'm not sure why any request for prorogation must automatically become a matter of confidence, because that is in effect what that proposal would do.