I think you've missed my point. The point is not whether there is symbolic value in that motion. That motion is not a constitutional amendment. The point is that there is a rule in the Constitution, which I've just read to you, which says that you cannot move away from proportionate representation. You don't have to achieve perfection, but you can't move away from it. And it seems to me that you can't lock it in so that it becomes more and more extreme over time.
Folks in my area, in rural Ontario, are under-represented. Their children will be more under-represented and their grandchildren even more egregiously under-represented. That is what I'm saying. That is unconstitutional. I'm looking for a fact-based argument to indicate that I've misunderstood things.