That is not clear. I feel that we have to wait for the Senate reference in order to get more principles on section 5.
I would say that the use of the word “composition” in 41(d) has to mean something. The country does not speak in vain. Whether that extends to qualifications is the issue.
I think it is at least a possibility that because of the use of the word “composition”, because of the non-exhaustive nature of the list of the documents that are listed in section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it is possible that certain aspects of the Supreme Court Act are now protected against mere legislative change. Whether that extends to qualifications is the issue.