Well, yes. You can think through the voter as a whole person voting from their full set of concerns versus our having to compromise what we do with the vote when we decide whether we're even going to vote, or how we vote. I think a quarter of us still voted strategically in the last election; I did, and right off the bat, we've compromised our whole-person awareness, and our whole-person awareness is a way of looking at the charter.
I'm a retired professor. I was a professor of psychology as well as environmental studies at Waterloo, and professor of justice studies at the University of Regina, just so you know. At Regina, our justice program looked at political justice, environmental justice, criminal justice, legal justice, and social justice because we felt that in liberal arts education, justice is a key concept in human civilization. So is beauty, including environmental beauty, which we seem to be losing a sense of—at least, in our community, we are.
We wanted to build the liberal arts comparative education around justice in all spheres, and it seems to me that you have that mandate now, in Canada, on behalf of us. That is your mandate, because justice is at the centre of your principles of electoral reform. Why wouldn't we have more chance of bringing our concerns about our children and our grandchildren and climate change and water degradation—which is really serious in this province—into the political culture if we could talk to each other cross-party, honestly, and not compromise our chance of getting re-elected?
Think about that. Local representation under the first past the post actually forces us to compromise, to appease special interests that are part of our voting bloc, which is totally different from listening to the whole electorate and their concerns, including the ones who voted for other parties.