Gentlemen, it's a real pleasure for me to meet you.
First, Mr. Kam, I want to make a short comment on what you said, because it's quite interesting. You talked about every issue evaluated, and you will see that many people support you.
I think I'm speaking on behalf of all my colleagues here. We cannot find anyone who supports 100% of the propositions in our own parties. It's impossible. Humanly, it's impossible.
I used to say that if you hear someone say that there is 100% agreement with his program, and in every party 100% of his colleagues are agreed on 100% of that, you would have in front of you, 100%, a liar, because it is humanly impossible.
This is democracy. This is why we have to respect the fact that, usually, it's not a clear majority. People have been elected with under 50%. In my case, I've been lucky, and three times out of four I've been elected with more than 50%, as has Mr. Boulerice in his riding, twice.
It's very touchy, but at least we have a consensus on most issues. This is why we can move on the real issues of the people, even if we do not agree on all aspects.
As I said earlier, gentlemen, I welcome that kind of discussion. In our party, we always have the door open. We want a referendum, for sure, but we are open to discussion about the future of the electoral system.
This is why, Mr. Jewell, I welcome your proposition, even if I am not quite sure I understand it very well. This is why I raise this question: How do you think we can educate people about so many propositions that we have on the table? How do you think we could achieve that? Because it's not an easy task. We have run on this electoral system for the last century and more. If we want something else, it is quite a challenge.
What do you think we should do to educate people before moving on with a new electoral system?