Okay, I understand the nuance.
Mr. Bozinoff and Mr. Schatten, you said that people who say they know what Canadians want may be speaking carelessly by playing the representation card. I am a duly elected member of Parliament. We have a representative democracy. I do not claim to know what voting system all voters want.
I know what I want and what my party wants. We want the voting system to change and a form of proportionality introduced. We prefer the compensatory mixed member proportional voting system. However, we don't want just any model of this voting system, and we don't want it to be applied haphazardly.
We need to take the time to do things properly. For that, we have to let the Prime Minister out of the straitjacket we have put him in by saying that it would be the last election with the current voting system. I don't think he knew what he was saying and had no knowledge of what was required to transform things.
Suppose our committee moves on to a second step that would involve developing a model and continuing to consult all voters to make them understand the differences between the proposed voting system and the current voting system. People would then be better informed and could settle the debate. In that case, would you be in favour of a referendum on the issue?
People have told us that a referendum wouldn't be necessary because we are the representatives of the people. If a referendum isn't necessary to change the voting system, it isn't necessary either to maintain the status quo. Right now, one is as good as the other.
If we don't want to decide for the people and if we want to rise above partisanship, I think a referendum would be necessary and could be held during the next election.
To interest people in this issue, shouldn't we first have a clear model, rather than keep the status quo and continue the consultations?