You mentioned, and I have to agree with you 100%, that it would be likely inconceivable after going through this exercise of consultation that a prime minister would ignore the results of that consultation. I think it would be politically inconceivable as well. But it's important that this be a consultation. I know we've probably had our fill of constitutional experts, but that aspect of having a consultation rather than a direct election, as you know.... In Professor Hogg's view, the constitutionality of this bill hinged on that. He in fact line by line has found that this bill is constitutional in every way.
I wonder if you might have some comment on how onerous the task is, when we're faced with the task of injecting a bit of democracy into what is now an undemocratic institution, to walk through that constitutional land mine. How significant is it, do you feel, that we have the eminent constitutional scholar in Canada giving his stamp of approval as to the constitutionality of this method?