Let me try to be brief, because I know that my colleagues will probably want to add to what I say or repeat what I say.
Firstly, if there's any reason basically to throw away this legislation it is the gridlock aspect. Think about what could happen if, as you say, Mr. Murphy, the Senate felt that it could veto almost everything the House of Commons does. We decry what happens in the Congress, and we have the potential to have even worse here.
Going to Peter Hogg, much as I respect his opinion, I think he failed to ask the critical question of what would happen if the Prime Minister refused to appoint someone after they had been duly elected. Given everything that my colleague John Whyte has said about our having gone first through the entirety of the federal electoral apparatus, if a prime minister, despite all of that, were then to say no, I will not appoint you to the Senate, then I can see that person going straight to the courts and asking that the courts declare the whole process unconstitutional--or that they be appointed to the Senate. It has the potential for constitutional chaos.