You obviously would have two categories of members of Parliament. In conversations with members of the House of Representatives in New Zealand, we heard that those MPs who do not have constituency obligations play a different role. For some people, if you're into policy development and you want to be hands-on and help hockey teams—and I guess they wouldn't be coming from New Zealand—or help individual citizens, then you may feel that is not the choice for you. That's one of my concerns.
I like the idea that the local MP puts a human face on government. I was a parliamentary intern way back in the early 1970s in the House of Commons. I worked with two fine members of Parliament, and I saw how important the mailbag was back in those days. It was more than just running errands on behalf of local people. It was generalizing from the cases that were coming before you to be informed when you went and talked on estimates to the minister and the public servants. I don't want to lose that connection.
A two-tier model of MPs can happen, but I think on a national basis it's a non-starter. It has to be on a regional basis or provincial basis. I don't think you want policy kings sitting up high there, favourites with the Prime Minister's Office, if they're in the governing party.