Thank you.
I'd like to note as well that I was mentioning to some of my colleagues last night that it was 17 years since my first election and I absolutely know that it was women who got me involved in this process; they thought I should run. So you could use the analogy that I've been running ever since.
You mentioned that 67% of people in some of the polls you've seen like PR, proportional representation. We've also seen that 73% of Canadians want a referendum before anything is instituted in Canada as far as a change in the electoral process is concerned, and that only 3% are looking at strategic votes, and we talk about strategic votes. A number of witnesses have said that we have to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in regard to making a change that may only impact the outcome of the seats in the House by 1% or 2%. I acknowledge that. Others have said we have one of the best systems in the world, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I'd be the first one to say that. Those are some numbers that may seem to contradict each other, but I think we need to look at them very seriously in regard to the type of process we come up with.
I appreciate your comments about the OECD countries, and the processes that you've used there.
I guess what I want to say is, would all parties go through some kind of a vetting process to look at candidates before they were finally signed on to run for any particular political party that we have? Do you think we should continue with that?