Senator, thank you very much for giving us your thoughts on Bill C-20.
This somewhat follows on from the question you were asked previously. I notice that some aspects of your document deal with Bill C-20 but that others go much further. For example, you are proposing that provinces are represented equally. That goes much further than anything in Bill C-20 and probably requires a fairly substantial constitutional amendment.
Then you say: "Senate reform does not require a constitutional amendment!" I imagine that you are referring to Bill C-20. Then you write: "Alberta has held three senatorial elections and the winners of two of those elections have been appointed without constitutional change." That is true, of course, but it means that you are arguing for the status quo. There is no need for Bill C-20 if you are able to show that Alberta has elected three candidates and that the Prime Minister has chosen two of them to be senators.
Could you clarify that? When you say that Senate reform does not require a constitutional amendment, I imagine that you are referring to Bill C-20.
If Alberta was able to provide the Prime Minister with three elected candidates, two of whom are now in the Senate, that means that we do not need Bill C-20 to extend the same practice to any provinces that want it.