Yes, I remember that too. I remember canvassing during that election.
Okay, that gives me a bit of an idea.
I realize you didn't sit on the commission, but you have the perspective of having listened to all the different commissions. That's why I'm pursuing this with you.
It seems to me that there is a practical difference that exists between trying to deal with a very large province—I guess I am thinking primarily of Ontario—and dealing with a much smaller province where not that much is changing; the seat count is different.
I guess in the case of Ontario, and it's probably true in British Columbia as well, you get growth that is occurring in one centre and then everything kind of radiates out from that and you get your domino effect from that. You've got an area where you have a combination of some areas that are remote—in the same sense that Nunavut is remote, or the Northwest Territories are remote—combined with areas that are extremely compact.
Was there anything mentioned with regard to the problems of trying to deal, in a practical way, with such a large and varied task, where there are really no common factors that would be involved in dealing with some of these different kinds of areas and trying to be fair to all of the geographically differentiated areas of the province?