Both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, when changes are made to the election laws, parliamentary tradition requires that an advisory committee be struck and be chaired by the chief electoral officer. The committee would operate by consensus. When a party breaks that tradition, it must expect the favour to be returned in a negative sense if it loses power. That is why the committee is consensus-based. In Quebec, prior to 1999, voters were not required to identify themselves. The court recognized that there were identity theft systems in place in 1995 and 1998, and that goes back the the majority Mr. Boulerice was talking about.
So if there is talk about changing the democratic rules of a society and there is a desire for plurality, for Canadians to embrace democracy, for people to be able to assess the advantages and disadvantages if no system is perfect, why is that being taken away from them? Some experts and individuals who belong to the elites say that it's very complicated and that, since there is a mandate of representative democracy, we should go ahead with this and the others will follow. I feel that it would be akin to Plato's the Republic. Philosophers would be in power. I am a philosopher, but that's not what democracy is.