I was just going to say one thing with regard to your comment and Mr. Christopherson's question, and the second thing relates to Professor Heard's testimony.
With regard to that, most of the professors made written presentations, and when they came to us, they had been following previous presentations that other professors had made, and so they would say on occasion--it's all there on the written record--that, you know, I've altered somewhat from what my written presentation said, based on effectively what I've heard from previous presentations.
I don't think they necessarily said the solution is not to have minority governments. It was more that this particular kind of situation only arises in a minority government, because in a majority government, the government can prorogue at will and it's never in conflict with the will of the majority of the House of Commons, for reasons we don't have to explain.
So that is a peculiar aspect of this. We're talking about how to control minority governments, but everybody should understand that when you get a majority government, it'll go back to being an elected dictatorship. It's just the reality of the situation, unless you change something else.
With regard to Professor Heard--it's that paragraph at the end of section F--I think what he was trying to get at, although it doesn't say this here, is how you do certain things that result in the establishment of a new convention. He said that a variety of things could be put to work.
I think what he's getting at is that you can do a series of things, and at the end, all these changes cause the circumstances in which a new convention comes into being. Really, I think he's talking about that somewhat ambiguous process, as opposed to saying one of these things will lead to a legal change.