Thank you, Madam Chair.
Here is what the French version says:
, y compris la nécessité d'un référendum national afin que les Canadiens aient la possibilité d'approuver tout changement proposé au système démocratique du Canada;
Everything that comes after “national” is okay. However, “y compris la nécessité d'un référendum national” implies that this is an obligation. It is a commitment. According to what Mr. Blaikie said, the motion does not appear to give the committee the option to decide whether to have a referendum.
All issues that are related to electoral reform and that the committee as such [Technical difficulty—Editor] relevant. If we want to modify a rule with the end goal of changing the electoral system, then it certainly becomes important. This is good, and is included in Mr. Blaikie's motion.
However, there is a grey area: the “y compris la nécessité”. The necessity is an order and a specific target. It isn't neutral.
Personally, I believe that the moment that the committee adopts a change that is deemed relevant, we will automatically be bound to have a national referendum.
I'm no French teacher, but I can tell you that my understanding of this part of the amendment is identical to Mr. Blaikie's initial assessment of it. I believe that we are committing to necessarily having a referendum if that is deemed relevant by the committee.