Yes. It takes you back a bit to the 1960s when we decided that we would go and demolish a whole lot of houses and have highways because it was efficient, and we'd get on with it. In retrospect, that was a mistake. The mistake is not recognizing one's heritage. We have a heritage here in Canada—indeed in the United States and England as well—from England of 400 years of the first past the post concept, and it's worked pretty well for that time.
On the other side, you have this concept of being on the right side of history that asks for more inclusion and for votes not to be wasted. It was in that sense that, yes, throwing out the system on the basis of six weeks of discussion and 12 members sitting around the table is drastic. But at least seeing the idea that proportional representation does make sense, I was proposing this system that keeps our heritage, keeps the local representation, that link, keeps the way that we've been doing things for the last 150 years, and makes just one incremental change that is reversible if we need it to be, but that can actually attempt to satisfy the mandates that this committee has been given, and see how that works.
It's much, much better—and I think you've put your finger on it—to change organically. Don't just throw out everything because that's the thing to do these days, that's the fashion. If we're going to go for a change that seems to make sense, then let's go there gradually, and this is a gradual way of doing it, making one simple change.