Yes, the discussion is going in an interesting way. We're talking about two kinds of fear here.
First, we have the fear that's just been expressed of the potential difficulties of two houses with formally equal powers, with both of them being elected rather than only one, and the possibilities of danger, risk, and so forth. That's certainly true. I think it should be noted, however, that the transition to a fully elected Senate as well as a fully elected House would take quite a while. We'd have a long time to see how it would develop.
On the one hand, there's the fear of passing the bill. On the other, there's the fear of opening a Pandora's box of constitutional amendment and the worry that if we do it we'll get into another endless debate. There's the fear that we couldn't keep it focused on the Senate. As in Charlottetown, the agenda would get bigger and bigger.
Given these two sets of fears and the desire not to just be bogged down in the status quo, it seems to me that it would be a good thing for all of our political institutions to explore the range of things they can constitutionally do. This is the reason I wanted to propose that we let Parliament use its imagination, test the limits of its constitutional powers, and then consult the court to see if it is still within bounds. If so, great. If not, the court will tell Parliament and Parliament will have to draw in its horns.
I would say the same thing about the provinces. I know the provinces don't have any rights at all in the appointment of senators, though I've often thought they should. But there's absolutely nothing to prevent provinces from having elections in order to generate a name they want to put in front of the federal government and the Prime Minister. This seems perfectly fine to me. It's testing the limits. It may or may not work, but it's an example at the provincial level of trying to open up a process that we've all agreed is not very effective as it stands.