I would set the framework of analysis of identifying these things. In retrospect, the one thing I would add is, however you fit it in, the point I tried to make in my opening, which is the importance of alternation among different parties through time. The second point is on what has caused me to rethink. I haven't come to definitive conclusions on everything. I'd want to do the same exercise before I came down definitively on anything. One of my books on constitutional reform is called Still Thinking.
What's fresh fodder for analysis? One is that the reform movement didn't happen. It was studied in Quebec. It was studied in B.C., put to a referendum. It was studied in Ontario, put to a referendum and lost. P.E.I. is currently considering it.
By the way, another question I can answer is on what I think about plebiscites. The answer is I think they're necessary in order to do this reform.
Sorry?