It makes sense, of course, to reform the Senate all at once and not to be electing people for life or fifteen years or eight years--we don't really know what. It doesn't make sense to be limiting terms to fifteen years or eight years when we don't know how they'd be chosen. It's no way to design a national legislature, to throw up a sort of jump-ball reform and see what shakes out. People play basketball that way, but they don't design nations that way. Of course they should be worked out together.
On Bill S-4 and Bill C-19, again, Professor Hogg and I disagree. He thought there was no constitutional problem and that it perfectly fell within section 44 of the unilateral federal amending power. I thought that it didn't.
My analysis on the constitutional validity, which I did give to the Senate, is that it's more tenuous. It's a harder question.
Very briefly, let me say that I think the structure, the composition, the term, and the qualification of the Senate are part of the essential federal arrangement, the federal accommodation. The Senate is part of our historic federal accommodation, and you can't just make a long list of changes that don't fall within paragraphs 42(1)(b) and 42(1)(c) and say that everything is open to unilateral federal amendment. That's not Confederation.