I suppose we might already be in deep trouble, since the Senate has at least one person who was appointed as the result of an election. If it is unconstitutional to take account of an election, we're probably already in trouble.
With respect to the question, this committee is going to make up its mind as to whether there is a serious risk of constitutionality. Of course it will always be open to people to challenge the bill. I suppose a disappointed candidate could challenge the process in some way. I don't think any serious question of constitutionality is likely to wait for 20 years. If it did wait for 20 years and the House was ruled to be unconstitutional, it might be a bit like the Manitoba language reference, where all the laws enacted back to 1896 were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. But the court said they could continue to be valid until there was time to correct them. I think something like that would be done by the court to avoid the chaos of saying that for the last 20 years we've been enacting invalid legislation.
I don't think that's a real concern. Of course it is a perfectly reasonable concern as to whether the bill is or is not constitutional.