I'll follow up on the questions of legitimacy, because in various forms, both you and Mr. Forth have put forward the idea of legitimizing what we're doing.
I would suggest that Nunavut has had a unique experience with plebiscite, referenda-type questions across a population of 32,000, of which 20-odd thousand would be voting. Canada as a country hasn't had such a spectacular experience with referenda. As some have suggested, it opens up or creates unforeseen divisions. The recent Colombian and U.K. referenda asked one question but got an answer that was entirely unrelated if you look at the exit polls and what people had on their minds. They were popularity contests, unpopularity contests....
Is there another way that we can legitimize this process? Some people have put forward the idea that it's this committee, and then further to that, the House of Commons should come forward with a consensus point of view. It would give Canadians the assurance that one party isn't bringing in a system favourable just to them, which is one of the fears. First, you're getting a bad system, but otherwise you're just cooking the books and making the rules favour partisan interests, outside of referenda. For us as New Democrats, a referendum is not off the table, but we see problems with it. Are there other things that can increase the level of legitimacy?
Perhaps with the little time left, I can have just a couple of quick thoughts from across the table.