It also allows a bit more freedom. I recognize that there are some formal constraints on you that you've been very careful to honour, in addition to those that are provided just by your careful nature; those might be removed, and that would be valuable to us.
I want to ask some questions that relate to several things, first of all to testimony you gave before the electoral reform committee last July. Second, there are the items that you did mention briefly—or the general subject matter, at any rate—in your report on the 42nd election.
At that time in July, I and a number of other members of the committee asked about the feasibility of conducting a referendum on electoral reform, given the tight timeline and the potential for redistribution under some of the models that are proposed, and so on. You submitted a very thorough response.
Those who say that a referendum cannot take place on electoral reform, as opposed to those who say it should not take place, have tended to provide a couple of arguments, one of which is that Elections Canada is not in a position to administer a referendum administratively. You responded a bit to that back in July. I am hoping that I'll be able to find out whether that is in fact the case or not the case.
Back in July, you stated in response to a question from me:
I can confirm with the committee that we've started to develop contingency plans, trying to identify what would need to be done.
You pointed out, of course, that a referendum has not been held since 1992, and said:
We've started to identify work that need[s] to be pursued to—
Have you made further progress in that regard?