I think the regional question is pretty important. It's a huge country geographically, and there are a lot of regional issues, identities, concerns, policies, and so on that need to be accurately reflected. I still think we have to have a made-in-Canada one, but in trying to arrive at that, it's probably not a bad idea to have a look at what is done elsewhere and see whether there is any element of that where we might say, “That looks like we might borrow some of it, if not all of it.” It may be useful to do that, and I think there is a very good chance that we end up with something that's different. I don't think we would just take some other country's system lock, stock, and barrel.
There is an interesting one in New Zealand. As I understand it, they had something like 63 who were elected by ridings, as we elect people, plus 50 or so who were from lists supplied by parties to balance, more or less, the outcome of seats in relation to how people voted, but also seven Maori seats, aboriginal seats. That was an interesting wrinkle. I think something that helps with the gender balance issue and the representation of women in the House of Commons is something that would warrant trying to make some progress on. Language is a consideration, for sure, in a couple of provinces.
If the system is that you elect so many by ridings, and then you fill in the rest from a list, I think that type of system provides some flexibility, some dynamics as to how you fill a seat. Otherwise, it's tough. Parties have district associations that elect their candidate. Unless you had a bunch of dual ridings where there was a requirement to have, for example, a man and a woman, it would be very difficult to achieve that. Each district association has its own autonomy. Leaders can push on that and do what they can to try, but it's tough.