You made a comment, and I appreciated it, not that it applies directly to this situation. It was that just because something is difficult to do is not necessarily a reason not to try to do it--to try to do something positive to change something.
You've mentioned and given your opinion on the constitutional aspects of this bill, particularly the constitutionality of the bill. We've had here at the committee Professor Peter Hogg, who, as you know, is a leading constitutional expert. He says that the bill complies fully with the Constitution and that in his opinion the bill is in fact constitutional. In light of his opinion that the bill is constitutional and in light of the....
There are varied opinions. You mentioned that some political parties and even some provinces are of the opinion that the Senate should be completely abolished; that's out there. Some people, perhaps with vested interests, believe that for one reason or another the Senate should stay exactly as it is; there is that element out there.
But most Canadians and most people from coast to coast, I would suggest, are not 100% satisfied with the status quo. They feel there should be more input, more democratic input. I also take into account your comment that just because something is difficult is not a reason not to try to proceed with change. What is your reaction, then, to this goal that we proceed with something that gives more democratic input and democratic legitimacy to the Senate, while also weighing the finding from a leading constitutional expert that what we're proposing is in fact fully constitutional?