I'm not surprised at the question either and haven't decided how I'm going to answer that. I was asked the same question, Mr. Chair, at a conference and I answered a referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum, and the entire crowd groaned at me, but it is more or less my position. Clearly there are reasons for all of us to want public legitimacy and credibility for whatever decision is made. I think the composition and openness of this committee goes a long way toward doing that. The opportunities for people to participate and contribute would go a long way toward doing that. Whether that's enough or not will depend a lot on what kind of consensus the committee's able to develop. I think that matters and that over time one might change one's mind.
Having said that, I understand the democratic impulse of asking constituents. On the question of asking constituents what they would prefer, a system they know well or a system they don't really know anything about and don't get, I'm not sure what the value of the result would be. In New Zealand, for example, where they did hold a referendum, they invested hugely in public education and information. They took it really seriously, because without that, I don't know what you have. I know there are ideas floating about holding a referendum after people have experienced the new system. I must say that has some attractive appeal to me because they are voting then between systems they know something about. I understand the impulse.