Mr. Chair, my friends, it is always a pleasure to see you again.
Perhaps Mr. DeCourcey was referring to school because we have two eminent professors with us, but it is a good analogy, I find.
I would also like to welcome the professor from California.
Welcome to our committee.
Of course, I have to extend a more personal greeting to Mr. Pelletier, a former colleague at the National Assembly. I was a reporter when he was an MNA and a minister. A few months later, I sat in the same place as he did.
I have to point out that at present there are 13 members around the table and seven of them are from Quebec. So Quebec has the majority today. That should make my Bloc Québécois friends happy. All the same, I must remind us that we are not here to play for Canada—to paraphrase a commercial we have seen a lot recently—but to work for it. I assume that my Bloc Québécois friends will be making some comments later. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.
Mr. Pelletier, I would like to talk about your experience. You have studied these matters a lot and you are now a constitutional lawyer. You are one of those rare political scientists who have worked as a politician. You have been a witness to and an observer of political life, as well as a participant in it. That allows you to form judgments on the two roles. There are not many like you. We know another one well, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Stéphane Dion. I may have the opportunity to refer to that later today.
Mr. Pelletier, the government is inviting us to consider an important change. In your view, must this kind of change be supported by Canadians? Must Canadians be consulted about it? Do we have to hold a referendum if we are to change the method of voting?