Electoral Reform committee  No. The Law Commission was created by a law of Parliament. The MPs voted in favour of its creation back before 2000, with the former Liberal government. Then there was some sort of commission that was created by the subsequent government. There was some sort of consultation, and the government said it wanted to get rid of the Law Commission for all sorts of reasons.

Electoral Reform committee  It is a common law tradition. The U.K., Alberta, Ontario, New Zealand, and Australia all have this tradition of having a law commission or a law reform commission.

Electoral Reform committee  After we produced this report, we worked on other issues, such as globalization and law reform. These were very important topics, but our funding was cut.

Electoral Reform committee  At the Law Commission of Canada, we made a recommendation, but we had neither the funds nor the mandate to move it forward. Of course if you have to produce a report and make recommendations, you have to be able to defend your point of view. The simplest idea is to say that something is not working, that electors' votes do not really seem to count and that it can be shocking when a party obtains 20% of the vote and gets 10% of the seats, while another one obtains 40% of the vote and has 60% of the seats.

Electoral Reform committee  That is an excellent question. On the one hand, any electoral reform which mirrors the population's wishes will lead to minority governments—there is a good chance that that could happen—unless more than 50% of the population votes for the same party. On the other hand, the rules of the game will change to some extent.

Electoral Reform committee  We basically adapted that a little to the current system and to Canadian reality because we have a huge territory. That is why we chose the 66-33 ratio. In Germany it is 50-50. In Scotland it is about 57-43. We chose a proportion that better reflected our vast territory. As for the open and closed lists, the four commissioners came from various parts of the country.

Electoral Reform committee  We heard that these complaints were groundless and that everything depended on the individuals concerned. I'll stop here so my colleague can have some speaking time.

Electoral Reform committee  Thank you for the question. Your electors will be happy to hear that when they want to vote for you and not for your leader, they will be able to do so because there would be two votes to express. If they like the leader of the party, all the better, but if they do not like him, they can find another or vote for no one.

Electoral Reform committee  There are two points here. The first one is that sometimes a voter will vote strategically. In accordance with our current system, there are strategies—who do I hate, who do I like? With the two votes, you may have to keep on being strategic, but you may also have the chance to elect the one you like.

Electoral Reform committee  First, I don't know if the 3% is true. Second, I don't know, because we'd have to ask the voters of New Zealand, Scotland, and other places where they have this possibility. In answer to your other question, there is a little nuance in the report. We suggest having a flexible list whereby you either vote for the list of the party or you select a specific person on that list.

Electoral Reform committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you very much for this invitation to appear before the committee. It is an honour to have this opportunity to speak before you. I understand that I was invited as a citizen, but especially as a former commissioner of the Law Commission of Canada who took part in preparing a report on the reform of the electoral system.