I'm not sure you answered my question, but that's all right.
If we are going to change the democratic rules in society, it must be done properly. The Bloc Québécois's position is as follows. We want change, but not just any change and not in any old way. Time must be taken to do things properly.
All the experts have said that no system is perfect and that each has benefits and drawbacks. We must not play around with representation on such an important issue, claiming to know what is best for the people. In our view, a debate on this is absolutely necessary. We can only do so under this mandate, which is unfortunate because there is not much time. If we had a debate and were able to agree on a model that we could present at the next election, that would be a sign of success. That would likely be much more effective that acting too quickly. In that case, there might be differences in positions.
In other words, why should we say that this experience will lead to agreement on a model that the people must in some way be able to approve in order for it to stand the test of time?