Thank you, Ms. Jennings.
I am a political scientist, but I am neither a constitutional expert nor a lawyer. However, I myself have studied this carefully. I worked on Parliament Hill for seven years. I was there when the Constitution Act, 1982 was passed. As regards the formula for amending the Constitution, I have in fact studied it quite a lot, and this is what I have concluded.
When you ask what the federal Parliament can amend in the Constitution through a simple Act of Parliament, I believe you are referring to Section 44, which stipulates that the Parliament of Canada may amend any and all provisions of the Constitution of Canada related to the executive and the legislative branch. It is a very broad power.
Section 42, which stipulates that the approval of seven provinces is required to do certain things, is a provision that limits a general power. That limitation should itself be interpreted in restrictive terms.
In the specific list of subjects listed under Section 42, which requires the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the total population of the provinces, I see no mention of the term of Parliament's mandate. I'm sorry, but that simply is not there. Consequently, I believe the term of the House of Commons mandate very clearly falls under the federal Parliament's legislative authority.
Some will say this interferes with the powers of the Governor General, but I think we have to be careful here; what requires the unanimous consent of the provinces has nothing whatsoever to do with Her Excellency because, as you know, the entire Government of Canada is lead on behalf of Her Excellency. It is the function per se that is at issue, and not each of the royal powers. Indeed, if you wanted to change that function, you would need everyone, even though in my humble opinion, that could have been included in the Constitution Act, 1867.