Thank you very much.
First of all, I didn't mean to say that Canada was a third world country in any way at all. If anything, I'm trying to say that our representation is outdated, not necessarily backwards or not progressive. I think Canada has succeeded very well. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
On government representativeness, there is a legitimate concern about how any major change to proportional representation would alter our understanding of the opposition. I understand that the opposition is an integral principle in Canadian parliamentary democracy. There will be a party with 35% that is not in the government, and that's a healthy thing. I would agree that we don't want absolute consensus and parties forming alliances to reach 50% or 60% of the population. The other 40% have to play a role in Parliament as an effective opposition.
The principle of opposition is something that is precious, and fragile in a sense. I think we must be careful not to sweep away the beneficial properties of having an opposition that's active and sees its primary job as criticizing government policy.
The specific concern of small parties making the difference, if you like, goes back to Ms. May's point about the Knesset, where very small parties blackmail major blocs. That is a concern. One way to look at that is to see that a flourishing multi-party democracy is the solution to that problem. The problem in Israel, with all due respect, is that they have two major parties and then very small parties that will always play that role in between.
If we have more competitive parties—three, four, or five competitive parties—I think you'll find that you won't have one very small group that can hold governments hostage in that sense, hopefully.