Okay. I just find it interesting you're advocating impartiality and independence, but then not willing to make that commitment to a consensus approach.
Moving on, you talked about democratic citizenship, democratic civic education. My background is in political science. I spent time as a lecturer at King's University College and talked about issues such as this.
One of the misconceptions in Canadian politics is that you vote for the prime minister. You don't vote for the prime minister unless you live in one of the five ridings where a political party leader is running, yet establishing, as you're hoping to do, a process in which we establish a leaders' debate, the supremacy of the party leader, almost seems to go against the idea of civic education, of informing people that in fact there are 338 separate elections going on at the exact same time in each and every political riding.
I know I participated in somewhere between 11 and 13 all-candidates debates in my riding, constantly trying to focus on the fact that each member of Parliament is running individually, yet here we're establishing a leader-dominated process, a process that seems counterintuitive to what we're talking about in terms of civic education and democratic knowledge.
I think my time is up, but I'll leave that if you have time for a comment.