As a member of the Canadian Bar Association, I completely agree with the suggestion by the Canadian Bar Association. I think the simple question that could be asked is what I've said in my presentation: Can you do indirectly what you cannot do directly by amending the Constitution?
Secondly, is a requirement of consultation with the provinces needed that, in keeping with the requirements for the general amending formula, as my colleague John Whyte has pointed out, would have to be triggered to have a proper amendment process?
Finally, I would love a general question to be asked: Can you essentially carry on separate pieces of reform of critical institutions, such as in the Senate tenure bill and this bill, and not link them together? I think that's another critical issue, which is bubbling under the surface.
Those are the three areas I would recommend to the Supreme Court of Canada.