From any reading I have done that looked at serious systems—I'm perhaps not as well informed as some people, such as Mr. Dave Brekke—people knew a lot more about the systems after questioning and discussing the systems, and it always seemed to come down to a component of first past the post still being retained in those systems. I think there is a bit of fear. What is the leeway in terms of accommodating this profound need for electoral reform? I think the elbow room we have to accomplish this goal also has to do with how we are communicating it. I would just like to refer to my starting point, that since in the core area the first past the post would be retained—from all the systems I can imagine—we should speak plainly to the country about that, and say that first past the post will stay as part of electoral reform. The conversation and the preparedness for change might all of a sudden be much better.
So far Canadians don't have much of an idea of the details that are being talked about. We could, in an honest way and with some wisdom, actually help this discussion by having better-thought-out headlines of these kinds of discussions.