Your statement is exactly what I've been trying to argue— that Bill C-20 is an example of Parliament's trying to do indirectly what it can't do directly. My argument is that if an institution as fundamental as the Senate is going to be altered, we ought to do it directly. I think it needs to be done, but I think it ought to be done directly, difficult as that may be. Richard is right in pointing to the difficulties, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean we should be devious about it. The difficulties are inserted in the amendment process of the Constitution to ensure a broad consensus in support of amendment. That's why it's important to have the provinces concur. That's why it's important to have widespread public discussion.
My concern is not with the objective of the bill, but with the means. And I don't think the objective justifies the means.