The PR debate

Re: Proportional representation is only great for unelectable professors, says Jean Chrétien, June 4; Letters to the editor June 7 Beyond his cavalier comments alleging that proportional representation is at heart an undemocratic electoral system, “For all the professors who want to sit in Parliament but who can’t even get themselves elected dogcatcher …,” former prime minister Jean Chrétien has identified a possible constitutional challenge that might well hinder future attempts to modify Canada’s first-past-the-post voting system.

Section 37 or The Constitution Act, 1867 (consolidated with amendments, 1982) states that all House of Commons members “shall be elected.” Nowhere does it advocate, support, promote or allow for the installation of federal legislative representation by any means other than (Electoral district) election (Section 40).

Proportional representation has at its core the appointment process. Based upon the percentage of its popular vote, a qualifying political party’s leadership selects the allotted sitting membership, thereby justifying Chrétien’s claim that it (is) a way for “apparatchiks” to “enter Parliament through the back door.”

There is little doubt that the PR appointment process may advantage “single-issue and fringe parties” with localized or regional support, but the seminal question for legislators, legal experts and perhaps the courts to determine is whether party appointments are at odds with Canada’s constitutionally mandated electoral provisions as they now stand. If so, the current FPP system would continue until constitutional amendment provided for otherwise.