I know that even among the experts there are many points of view. So I ask you, isn't that a reason for clarifying everything and making sure that we do not make any mistakes? That's the bottom line.
As I said, some experts do pretend that the reference of 1980 of the Supreme Court of Canada on the upper house does not apply any more. They pretend that it was replaced by section 42 or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They look at the bill and say it does not fit within section 42, so it must fit within section 44. But what about section 38, the residual amendment procedure? Why wouldn't that residual amendment procedure apply when a bill affects a fundamental feature of the Senate that is not mentioned in section 42? If it's a fundamental feature and it's not mentioned in section 42, it should not be within section 44; it should be somewhere else. If it's not in section 44 and it's not in section 42, it must be in section 38.
I did not see a commentary that was made in favour of Bill C-20 that could not, on some aspects at least, be put into question. For that reason, I invite you to be extremely cautious, extremely prudent with that matter. Even if the objectives that you, being the federal government, are pursuing might be extremely legitimate, there is a constitutional process in Canada that must be respected. At some point, what you see here is a province that asks for a verification of respect of the Constitution to which it adhered in 1867.