Well, I think it's been quite clear, when the bill and the concepts of Senate reform have been studied before, that the approach we're taking is entirely constitutional. As you're aware, if it were to be a major, wholesale change to the composition of the Senate, for example, that would require the constitutional amendment process, the 7/50 formula and the like.
This is not that kind of change. This is a change that's entirely constitutional. That's been confirmed by the strongest authorities in the area of constitutional law in Canada. Peter Hogg, who taught me tax law, who is widely seen as the senior constitutional expert in this country, believes that the bill is entirely constitutional. Patrick Monahan, who taught me contract law and gave me a better mark than Peter Hogg did, is of the view that this is entirely constitutional and appropriate.
If we were to wait to have a consensus among the provinces for how to change the Senate, the wait would be, at least so far, over 140 years. So we believe it's necessary to move forward with change that is constitutional, that is incremental, and that responds to the fundamental lack of legitimacy within the Senate right now.
I will point out that there have already been senators appointed that are the product of a popular election process. That's happened on previous occasions already. One of those, Senator Bert Brown, sits in the Senate right now. I don't know of anybody who suggests that his presence there is unconstitutional. I don't know that anybody thinks it is inappropriate. I think most people regard the fact that there is someone there who enjoys a popular mandate as something that enhances his legitimacy and the legitimacy of the overall body. I think that's how it would be perceived overall.
But I can assure you that on the fundamental question of constitutionality, it's quite clear that this bill--and our proposed incremental amendment is a modest amendment--is entirely constitutional.