The first thing I'd say is that in my opening remarks I did talk about these four things that can be changed to achieve electoral reform. I am familiar with dual member proportional, and Sean Graham and I think it's a perfectly acceptable system, as is any other system that achieves proportionality. Personally I like list PR the best, straight up, but I know I'm in the minority in Canada on that. If you look at these four criteria, that might give you an effective set of criteria to judge different systems. Ours is the only one that I'm familiar with that only changes one, but there are a number that can achieve proportionality with arguably only changing two. There's the dual member, the Baden-Württemberg, which I know has been raised a lot in the committee, and nearest runner-up MMP. Arguably you don't have to change the ballot—well, you don't have to change the ballot for any MMP system—and you wouldn't necessarily have to change the nature of MPs, arguably, because they're still highly localized.
All I would say to that is, you know, we're fine with any system. I think SMDPR deserves its day in court, as it were, but that might be a good way for you to judge alternatives, in terms of how much they change or how easy they will be to accept in the Canadian experience.
Regarding SMDPR, I should say too that the constitutional requirement, as far as I know, is only that provinces have a specific number of seats, right? It's a bit murky in terms of votes crossing boundaries to determine who gets elected in other provinces, but you could do SMDPR the same way, but that could lead to regionalization, so we recommended a more regional way.