Thank you for the question.
Essentially, I think having drawn on those six sources, I was grounding it very solidly in the tradition of Canadian political and parliamentary and democratic practice. Probably two areas would stand out, though, that would be different in 2010 from 1992.
One relates to the fact that we increasingly function in Parliament, and parliamentarians increasingly function, within cyberspace. Indeed, one of the questions the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, has put to the committee is a problem about printing these ballots for overseas use. When we get to that in later questioning, I think there's a solution to that that is of paramount simplicity, simply relating to the Internet. I would say that yes, that's one area where some of the methods that were talked about in 1992 have been supplanted by the advance in technology, and also the equipment that Canadians have as empowered citizens, with access to much better information. All that should be tapped and not ignored.
The second area would be with relation to the finances. I had recommended and drafted in my legislation before, the requirement for umbrella committees, the need to have even-handedness spending on both the yes and no sides, as in the Quebec act--for example, the Referendum Act in Quebec. Since then, I would endorse the initiatives primarily taken by Prime Minister Chrétien and followed on by Prime Minister Harper to constrain even further the sources, to limit sources simply to voting citizens; in other words, no corporate donations, no union donations, simply those who can vote in the referendum in Canada able to also contribute financially to the support of their chosen side.