Evidence of meeting #12 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was voters.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dennis Pilon  Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, York University, As an Individual
Jonathan Rose  Associate Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Maryantonett Flumian  President, Institute on Governance

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

No. I think a citizens' assembly is similar to a jury. What does a jury do? A jury looks at evidence, deliberates, comes to a decision, and then makes a recommendation to a judge. A judge doesn't second-guess a jury. A judge doesn't second-guess a jury, because the task has been given to the assembly to deliberate and to weigh the evidence before it.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

I have the quote from Reddit in which you said virtually the same thing:

I used to think that a referendum was important. It is, after all, a way for the public to support an elite driven (citizen or political) initiative. But then again, we don't ask a judge to approve or comment on a jury's decision so maybe we need not ask the public to approve a citizens' assembly process.

May I take it, then, that your position is now that we should have a citizens' assembly, and its decision should effectively be binding upon the government, without the need to go to a referendum?

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I don't think you need an either/or, but I do think a citizens' assembly or some kind of deep deliberative exercise would be useful. I'm happy to sketch out, if we have time later, how that might look, but you are absolutely the elected representative, and in some sense the buck stops with you. I recognize that, but I think there is an opportunity not to replace but to supplement the work you are doing with citizen engagement in a meaningful way.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

I think I'm out of time. I'll probably come back in the next round. Thank you.

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

Okay, thanks.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Cullen is next.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

It's really an honour to have you folks with us here today.

I'll start off with Professor Rose, and then I want to move to Mr. Pilon and maybe in the second round to Ms. Flumian.

You talked about deliberative versus consultative. Earlier the NDP had suggested to the government a form of citizens' assembly to work in parallel with what we're doing here, but it seems that with the timeline, that idea was not accepted by the government, and with the timeline we have now, it's hard for me to imagine. Maybe someone can make a suggestion on how we could incorporate more of a citizen engagement than we have.

You talked about being deliberative versus just consultative. In September-October this committee will get out on the road to talk to people. To be deliberative with Canadians, how would you recommend the committee present the question that we're asking of Canadians? What are we asking them to comment on?

You talked about the cart before the horse and about not putting a bunch of systems up. Is it about asking them what priorities matter most, such as direct geographic connection or more women in politics? Is it what they value most? Are those the types of questions and the answers we should be receiving back from Canadians, because it will then inform the system we suggest?

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

Exactly.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Is that the process you would imagine?

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I think that's exactly the process.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay.

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

But I think there is an opportunity for a citizens' assembly to provide a broad-based, evidence-based opinion about what values are important and how that informs your work.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Even with the timeline and the commitments we have to change the system prior to 2019?

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

I think so.

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Perhaps not today, but with your expertise and the people you know, if you were able to provide the committee with some recommendations on what that would potentially look like under the time constraints we have, I think it could be something we should consider. The question of legitimacy is important to all of us.

10:40 a.m.

Prof. Jonathan Rose

Absolutely.

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

To Mr. Pilon, it's very disheartening, to all of us as elected people, that people vote for parties and not for our brilliance. I'm sure my colleagues and I are all dispirited today by that comment.

10:45 a.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I'll read you a quote. It's a little lengthy, but I'd like your comment on it. This is from Hansard a number of years ago, from one of the MPs:

Does he care at all that Canada is now the only complex multiparty democracy in the developed world which still relies on a 15th century voting system designed for medieval England? Does he care at all that 60% of Canadians in the last election voted against his government's program and yet the government holds 100% of the political power? Does he have the capacity for one moment to transcend partisanship and his government's defence of the status quo to suggest that yes, perhaps this place, the voice of the people, the place where we speak, parliament, should consider an electoral system which allows the plurality and diversity of political views to be properly reflected in this, the people's House?

Would you agree with the general sentiment of that statement?

10:45 a.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

It sounds like me talking.

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

It sounds like you talking?

10:45 a.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

It sounds like me talking, yes. I wasn't there, but....

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Well, someone has to tweet our friend Jason Kenney, because that's Jason Kenney talking.

It's a view I also support—well, the view he held at that time—because there are a couple of notions in there. One is that when parties get in, they like the system that got them in. There is this barrier we have to overcome to consider another system. The second is just the basic unfairness to Canadians, to voters, of the system we currently have.

10:45 a.m.

Prof. Dennis Pilon

You know, I tell my students, “Don't knock politicians. It's a hard job.” It's a thankless job, in many ways. Weekends and evenings are spent talking to people and doing stuff. It's hard, hard work.

That doesn't mean your vote is a reflection of all that hard, hard work. In fact, it's just sort of an expected part of the job. You may not know this, but it was really only in the 1970s, fairly recently, that Parliament gave the funds to MPs to actually set up local offices and do the kind of work that we seem to think now is a historical legacy. There's all kinds of evidence, really clear evidence, that you are not the centre of the voter's universe.

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Chair, I'd move to strike that testimony from the record, if I could.