Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand and your team, for coming out to our committee and for your very thorough presentation.
I wanted to start with two comments, followed by two questions to you. First, I have a comment relating to something Mr. Murphy had raised. He expressed a concern that I think was misplaced, and he indicated, as I understand it, that he was afraid that in a province like his own, where there is a majority of English speakers and a minority of French-speaking residents, the majority would never elect a French-speaking person. I think that's an ill-placed fear. History shows, of course, that Louis Robichaud, for example, was able to get elected in New Brunswick. He was an Acadian, and it suggests to me there is no underlying problem in Canada. There are lots of other examples of people being elected who are not members of the local majority. There's no problem in Canada with enlightened voters. I think he need not fear that.
My second comment relates to one of your suggestions, Mr. Mayrand, on the subject of having a regulation giving a power similar to that used under section 7 of the Referendum Act. This is a suggestion you made in your presentation. I think that's a good idea. I think that would provide a model that's already being used that might be very helpful. I'm glad you pointed that out, and I appreciate that. You can comment on that further if you wish, but I just wanted to indicate that I thought it was a good idea.
I turn now to the question you raised on page 12 of your presentation regarding the resources required for plurality voting. You indicated that if we have an interim system and a final system, the final system being STV and the earlier system being a kind of multi-member plurality voting, this would add time, which you think can be recovered, if it's not done. How much extra time are we talking about, in your opinion? I assume you got a recommendation from your consultants on this.