Sure. For me there are two issues here. First of all is the question of the committees. You will see in the notes I've provided that I make a recommendation on what Parliament could do. It cannot actually put restrictions on the Prime Minister or the Governor General with respect to the power of prorogation without a constitutional amendment, but it could look at how it operates when prorogation is called. There have been some exceptions to the business of the House of Commons that have been covered by a prorogation. I am wondering if committees should be one of those things that you consider.
If we look at 2009, which I thought was much more troublesome than the 2008 prorogation, or the experience of the McGuinty government in Ontario, when a government is seen to be avoiding tough hearings by committees and it prorogues, that really does create disillusionment among the public, and cynicism, and can lower the legitimacy of the government and our political institutions. It also makes Parliament look like it's less effective than it should be.
The second point is about the budget. I find it very troubling that we have not had a budget. That is one of the best means for Parliament to hold the government to account and to scrutinize what it is doing. It provides stability and continuity. The primary function of Parliament is to approve the funds of government and to check how those funds are spent. Without a budget, it's very difficult to do that. In my work with the public sector, I am also asking people in the public sector how they are affected by there not being a budget, because I think it is an important measure.