Yes. I think that the problem is particularly acute in our system where we have one-party majority governments that can be changed very easily with just a few percentage points change in the popular vote. It can result in this problem because many policies, not just military procurement, require a longer time horizon than a single electoral cycle. If you have coalition governments with more than one party involved, you're not as likely to get these kinds of dramatic changes as the result of a few points shifting, which is usually the way it is, actually. An election usually turns out to ride on a very small percentage change in the popular vote. As a result you have more stable long-term policies because there has to be more of a consensus on those policies. I think that's true of moving toward a proportional system.
I'd just like to suggest an answer to Ken's remark asking what the Liberal monopoly on seats in Atlantic Canada says. I think his point was that it's a message to the other parties that there's something wrong. I would, in fact, say that it's a perfect example of the distortions that our current electoral system produced, because the outcome was clearly at least partially due to strategic voting, the belief people had that they had to move strongly to one alternative to the current government to ensure that the current government was defeated. That's what our electoral system does. There were a number of excellent MPs who were very popular in their ridings who were pushed aside by that, and people did not feel good about that, people who I've talked to. They felt they had to do it, and it was the electoral system that made them do it.