To begin with, I would say that the 1980 opinion to some extent clarified this issue. Among the questions asked of the Supreme Court which remained unanswered due to a lack of evidence was whether the federal Parliament could unilaterally change the name of the Senate. In my opinion, and I'm saying this for argument's sake, any change to the name of the Senate may be the unilateral prerogative of the federal Parliament, which may change the name to, for example, the House of the Provinces or the Regions, or the House of the Federation. This would simply involve a name change.
Moreover, there are criteria with respect to senators' qualifications which, in my opinion, may be unilaterally altered by the federal Parliament. Paragraph 42(1)(c) states that the following is not within the federal Parliament's jurisdiction, and I quote:
(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualification of senators;
Therefore, the conditions with respect to their assets or property may, in my opinion, be unilaterally modified by the federal Parliament, to the extent that that would not affect the Senate's powers. There is nevertheless scope for minor changes and internal matters.
Now, there is the matter of appointing a Président of the Senate, as opposed to an orateur. That's a poor translation, and the French word Président is more appropriate. So, at the time, the Constitution Act had to be amended to make this change. These are the types of quite minor changes which may be made.