I take your point about there being a constitutional basis for P.E.I.'s particular case. In our brief, of course, we said that section 35—recognizing the existence in Canada of the aboriginal peoples—of course is a constitutional foundation as to why that reality of Canada should also be reflected in the makeup of the House of Commons. Whether you need a specific constitutional amendment to justify one or more of the measures we're talking about, I would say we didn't track through the downstream constitutional implications of everything in our brief, and undoubtedly you'd want to get further advice on that point.
Would the principle of relative equality of representation be violated by extra representation of Inuit along one of the lines we've talked about? I don't think so. I think the courts in Canada have been quite willing to introduce a fair bit of flexibility in terms of justifiable variations on the core rule of equality of representation, but clearly, if the committee were to adopt any of these measures, you'd want to satisfy yourselves further with some explicit research on that point.