As I said, I'm not going to sink to the level of Mr. Reid. I think he's demonstrated his ability to stay mature as a legislator in this hearing.
What I will address, though.... I did ask the same questions in this hearing. I asked the same three questions, so I'm glad you raised the point. Again, Mr. Reid, your duty as a legislator is to take account of the risk you are putting forward to the country. You are not the Supreme Court of Canada—neither am I—but it's a risk you have to take into account when you pass legislation.
And yes, there will be consequences, if advisory elections take place and senators are appointed. And if the Supreme Court of Canada pronounces the legislation unconstitutional, they will be severe consequences.
You may have taken to heart the fact that the patriation reference case occurred before the amending formula came in. Well, fine; so did the upper house reference case. Are you dismissing that one too?
Even if we accept your position, as my colleague John Whyte has stated, the clear provisions of the amending formula state that what you are doing is unconstitutional.
I will not sink to your level of abuse, because it demonstrates that essentially you have decided not to talk about the issues, but essentially have sunk to a level I will not go to.