Until about an hour ago, I didn't even know that Jon and I are from the same institution, or at least were at some point in time, so it puts me on the spot.
It's an absolutely mathematically and intellectually brilliant alternative, and Jon, you have to forgive me for saying this, but I think it will remain in the classroom or at least in intellectual conversations. I think, just looking at the conversation here, it will be impossible to convince the rest of the Canadian electorate that this is an alternative to adopt.
It puts too much change and too much complexity in how Parliament would operate, and I'm not sure at all how some of those key principles would actually be met. I'm not sure that the examples—you mentioned the IMF, the European Union.... I would look at national comparables, and there is a reason why no country yet has adopted the system that you advocate, because there are all kinds of other considerations that come into the picture: representing different communities; promoting the representation of various groups in our society, be they ethnic groups, territorial-defined groups, gender. It's much too mathematical for the kind of vision that I think the committee, the Government of Canada, is trying to promote.