Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Professors Russell and Dutil, for your compelling testimony before us today, and in the case of Professor Russell, your lifetime of work on these and other issues in particular.
I have a couple of perhaps editorial notes to make, which you're free to respond to, Professor Russell. You mentioned the 2008 NDP-Liberal coalition. I would submit that one of the reasons polling indicated that 70% to 80% of Canadians rejected that proposed coalition was in part that it was not advertised as a possibility prior to the election and in part because it involved the Bloc Québécois. You will recall Mr. Duceppe signing that accord. Just as you have suggested there is a political requirement for a referendum in order to grant the process democratic legitimacy, I would submit that parties who prospectively will create a coalition must at least admit the possibility of that, given our long-standing history of not having formal coalitions.
More specifically, on one other point of information, I gather that Israel does have a floor in their PR system of 3.25%—so the most marginal part. That's part of the reforms that Israel made I think about 15 years ago.
I wonder if both of you could comment on the following. Professor Dutil has outlined the Jennings test as it may apply to the question of a constitutional convention for a referendum on electoral reform. He also suggested that perhaps the government may want to refer the question of whether or not there is a convention to the Supreme Court.
Would either of you care to comment on this as it relates to the Supreme Court decision on the Senate reference case two years ago, in which the Supreme Court suddenly seemed to adopt a very strict originalist jurisprudence with respect to the original intention of the founders vis-à-vis the Canadian Senate. Essentially to paraphrase it, the court said that the founders had a particular idea of what the Senate ought to be, which would be violated by elections to the Senate.
Do you not think it's also possible that, following the same kind of jurisprudential line, the court would say that the founders had a particular idea that the House of Commons would be based on first past the post?