Sir, I would simply point out that a number of reforms have been proposed, some of them trying to create a wedge between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. That may be one avenue that we could pursue. Constitutionally, I suspect that would fall apart before the courts.
More fundamentally, I would also make the point that if we look at the United Kingdom, recent efforts to remove the dissolution prerogative and to give it to the House of Commons was one effort, but that is now being repealed given the unintended consequences that it had. Similarly, we need to bear in mind that we've even lauded the U.K. Supreme Court quite a bit here today, but this has led to a pushback on the part of the government in the United Kingdom to reduce its powers precisely in this area. We need to be mindful of the types of reforms we pursue.
Fundamentally, I would say this is a question of norms. This is a question of how we use power. That can only be changed by a change in how political actors operate and think about what is legitimate and what is not. You cannot change it through constitutional conventions necessarily. You cannot necessarily change it through codification because there will always be gaps, there will always be measures and efforts to use powers in ways that may be disagreeable. There's no clear solution here, other than changing the political norms of what is acceptable around the use of power. That is fundamentally what I point to, because, as we've seen in the United Kingdom, efforts to simply remove these powers or transfer them to the House of Commons come with their own problems.