Just as a quick point, far be it from me to help the government in terms of making its argument, but if you take a look at Ms. Jennings' question, if you look at studies, you can certainly look at jurisdictions where they have adopted a flexible fixed date. I'll point to the one that I know the best, which is New Zealand. They have seen an improvement in voter turnout. So if that is sourced and brought forward, it might be helpful.
But I have to say that when we look at Mr. Milner's paper, when we look at the example of New Zealand, I really want to underline the point that, notwithstanding that it's a move toward democratic reform, it really isn't the end of the equation in terms of what we've seen particularly in New Zealand, where it was coupled with other democratic reforms. I would hate to see this being the end of the story. Hopefully it is just the beginning, because I can tell you, when you look at the case of New Zealand--and they are in the Westminster tradition--it was coupled with other reforms. I simply wanted to make that point.
There are jurisdictions outside of Canada that have adopted fixed election dates, and it seems to be a positive thing.