As you know, the reference to the Supreme Court that I participated in was primarily a reference about the amendment process under part V of the Constitution Act, determining the level of provincial support that had to occur under our Constitution in order for certain amendments to the Constitution to be made, particularly amendments that relate to the structure of the Senate, all the way to the issue of the abolition of the Senate.
As I've said in another setting, it would be fair to say that it was more a reference about the constitutional amendment process than a reference about the Senate itself. The Supreme Court was not charged with the mandate or responsibility to assess various proposals for Senate reform, but asked under the reference to determine what processes for amendment needed to take place.
That was really the focus of the work that I did as amicus curiae, focusing on the structure of the Constitution Act and the provisions for amendment of the Constitution that we are working with.
Nonetheless, it's fair to say that in understanding the kinds of issues that are likely to have arisen in that conversation, I had to become quite familiar with the historical record with respect to constitutional amendments on the Senate. Part of that obviously involves consideration of a variety of concerns expressed about the Senate, it's current configuration and possible transformations for the future.
The thing that I might bring that might be relevant to an understanding of qualifications of individuals that would be appropriate senators, the understanding that I bring is this understanding that's based on having read very widely on the role of the Senate and on its position within our constitutional architecture.