I have a couple of responses, and they may seem a bit intemperate, but I don't mean them to be.
The first point is that I don't equate democracy with intergovernmentalism. I don't think agreements among governments are the only way to go forward in a democratic society.
Second, I do think that from time to time governments have an opportunity and even an obligation to destabilize the status quo. I'm thinking a little bit of Barack Obama's campaign in the U.S., which is all about change. No one in the U.S. primaries is saying “My message is that nothing will change, unless maybe we can bring all the state governments together, and if the states agree, then I'll do something”. You'd be dead in the water if that were your platform within the United States.
So my view is that in the long term, the consent of the provinces will be required, because of the eventual requirement for constitutional change. To me, that's unavoidable. But how do you even start that conversation? How do you even bring people to the table?
Well, you need something to create that action. If this government or any government simply said we've got an appointed house and it's not working very well, it's an increasingly partisan operation, but if people ever get around to coming together and talking about it, then we'll sit down at the table with the rest of you, I think that's.... Again, I don't want to seem intemperate here, but I see that as an abdication of responsibility from the Government of Canada.
So I don't see this as a way of getting around the provinces. It's a way of kick-starting that conversation, because you can only get around the provinces to a very limited degree, and then you run into that requirement down the road for provincial consent. That's an unavoidable constitutional necessity. That's the way the country has been structured. That's fair enough. But you get there by beginning that conversation first.
Maybe it craters in the long run, but I still think you have to begin that conversation.
That's all.