I want to pursue that a little bit, because it's one of the things the committee is going to have to grapple with. In the relatively recent experience in Ontario, where the politicians even made commitments that they weren't going to comment on the referendum, there are some people who, in reviewing what happened, believe that holding the two of them at the same time was not good, that there wasn't a sufficiently thorough debate about the referendum question because the politicians weren't engaged in it. They had agreed not to speak to the issue. Some of the review was of the opinion that had the two of them been separated, we'd have gotten a more focused public and we'd have gotten a more intelligent decision, or a more thoughtful decision. Again, what are your thoughts?
On October 26th, 2010. See this statement in context.