The courts have rarely intervened. In fact, some people have taken the position of my colleague Mr. Lagassé that the courts should not interfere. I disagree with that, particularly in light of the U.K. Supreme Court decision on Brexit. It is sometimes difficult to reach a unanimous decision on complex constitutional issues, but in that case, a court unanimously decided to provide a framework for exercising the power of prorogation and created benchmarks that had never been created by the constituent itself or by a Parliament and that the government had never imposed on itself. I think we should use it as a model.
Actually, if action had been taken when Parliament was prorogued or the next day, on August 19, this British precedent would have been of great interest. It's hard to tell what the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada would have been, but we can imagine that it might have wanted to apply the same principles and could have declared the prorogation illegal, as the U.K. Supreme Court did.