Sure. You're right to begin from a position of values. I think back to the dictionary definition of reform, which is to change something for the better. We have to be very careful that we understand the full implications of the changes we consider and that we are making it better.
I was just listening to the conversation about gender. I've just written a paper that will be in the Canadian Journal of Political Science shortly on candidate nomination and gender in the 2015 election. It's true that it is a principal obstacle, but if the intent is to get more women into Parliament, there are lots of other ways of doing that short of changing the electoral system if we have a real commitment to do it, which we should.
Changing the electoral system, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee that. People cherry-pick examples, right? Ireland, which has a more proportional system, has fewer women in their lower house, the Dáil Éireann, than we do. It just doubled in the last election earlier this year, and that was the result of tying campaign finance reimbursements to increasing the number of women nominated, which is something we could do if that were really what we wanted to do and we had that as a strong incentive.
I would just say, to answer your question, that I don't have a preferred position on this. My advice to the committee would be to go slowly. I get concerned, and that's one of the things I was trying to address. If we move very quickly and say that the next election is going to be under MMP or AV or STV, and we don't allow time for political parties to adjust to that, I think it could result in a real power grab toward the centre of our parties and away from internal party democracy where members and EDAs have an important role.
It doesn't have to end up that way, but if we don't leave time for the parties to consider those things and have a thoughtful conversation about them, I think that's where we would end up.