Yes, and I think that's the problem. The term “prorogation” is not actually mentioned in the Constitution, but the preamble to the 1867 Constitution says that whereas the provinces—which it then lists—are desirous of creating a Constitution for Canada “similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”, in the United Kingdom, the practice of prorogation had pre-existed. So the question is to what degree....
Of course, we've used prorogation in practice, and the question is to what degree, formally, prorogation exists and what kinds of limitations there are on our ability to make changes to it, and, if so, who would make those changes. We have more than one constitutional amending formula in terms of limitations that would be placed on it.
Then, separate from that discussion of the pure legalities, which presumably you can only resolve by submitting a reference question to the Supreme Court, there is the question--I think Andrew Heard was addressing this to some degree, because he's an expert on constitutional conventions--of the degree, conventionally, to which the Prime Minister's ability to make recommendations to the Governor General on what to do is limited. That's the question we're struggling with over here.