Mr. Chair, this morning you didn't tell me when I only had a minute left and I was cut short, so I wasn't able to thank Mr. Mayrand or tell him certain things. However, I will impart them to Mr. Kingsley.
First, I would like to thank you for your immense contribution to maintaining the integrity of our electoral system. Mr. Mayrand said this morning that all voters have great confidence in the integrity of the system. I think that you and Mr. Mayrand have helped to make that happen.
And when I heard my colleague Mr. Boulerice say earlier that we should have much greater means to reach all voters, it was sweet music to my ears. Your response was sweet music to my ears, as well. You are entrusting us with this responsibility, and you said that we, much more than the executive body, are the ones who need to take responsibility for this electoral reform. In your opinion, we should have much greater means, and I agree with you on that.
Given the timeframes we're up against, the responsibility and difficulty we're facing are enormous. We will do our best. You said at the start that no system was perfect, and we agree. I've looked at several. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Ultimately, isn't it up to the people to determine what advantages and disadvantages they'd like to take on? Isn't it up to them to settle the debate, given that it isn't a discussion for experts, insiders or politicians? At some point, Canadians need to have their say. While we are trying as much as possible to keep them informed and they are keeping us informed too, we are going to have to present or recommend a model, which will also need to be presented to Canadians to see if they agree and if they are going to accept all the advantages and disadvantages for many years.
In these conditions, wouldn't it be more reasonable to consider holding a referendum at the same time as the next election?