Evidence of meeting #21 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 change.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. As it did, I would suggest, also with the unfair election act, which was unilaterally brought through Parliament changing the way people vote. It was seen as a more partisan calculation than it was some sort of hope for democracy.
3:15 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
When people start to hear the screaming from people who are opposed to something, the automatic place that they go to is one of motive. Why is this happening? What is the purpose of this? Who has to gain from this? Then they look at the players who've come forward with whatever the opposite positions are, and then they evaluate it based on the credibility of the people who were talking about it.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's very helpful.
Mr. Gibson, I turn to you. At one point, you wrote that the goal of electoral reform is “to design [a system] change so that the winners include the general public, with much less concern for the interests of the political parties.” That means, flatly and bluntly, a system that gives you more control over who becomes your member of Parliament, and then gives your MP more power in the government.
Do you favour—I'm not going to suggest this—broadly proportional systems over the majoritarian system that we have?
3:15 p.m.
As an Individual
For British Columbia, yes. I work with the citizens' assembly. When I designed it, I had no views on electoral reform. Following their logic and deliberations, I thought they came to the right conclusion for British Columbia. Nationally, you have a different issue. Canada is a federation; British Columbia is not. The different regions of Canada are intertwined in the delicate balance here in Ottawa. One of the reasons that we're a federation is so that Ottawa won't have too much power and the regions will have considerable power.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled at the results of what they did, because Sir John A. wanted a highly centralized federation and the Americans wanted to decentralize, and it worked out the opposite way. We have a highly decentralized federation. Yet, I think if you go to a proportional representation system, you are going to centralize our federation more.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Our time is up, but could you just say why you feel that would be the case? Just briefly tell us why you think it would become more centralized.
3:20 p.m.
As an Individual
It would be more centralized, I think, because all of a sudden no group could claim to speak for, say, Alberta.
3:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll use a more or less neutral example, because Alberta would be all over the place in terms of its representation.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for you, Mr. Bricker.
In your presentation, you said that holding consultations was not enough, but that it was important to see what the people really thought. Perhaps those are not the exact words you used, but I would like to know what you mean. Should we do more than just holding consultations over four weeks by going to certain places in Canada? Should we use other types of consultations, such as surveys?
3:20 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
Well, yes, you should conduct polling.
That's a very good idea. I've done a bit for you.
In this modern age, with all the technology we have available to us, and the degree to which we're dealing with a highly literate, highly educated population, I think we should trust them. I don't usually take positions on these things; I just report public opinion. In this instance, I would say that the more you can do to solicit people's opinions, and not just the squeaky wheels who always show up at these town hall sessions, and the rest of it.... If you get out there, and you engage with the public, then you can bring them along on this in this discussion.
The situation you're dealing right now, I'll be honest with you, is that you're telling people they have a problem they don't know about. Few people have the problem this committee has. The second thing is that almost nobody understands anything about any of these solutions you're bringing forward. The hurdle that you're going to have to get over to generate public consensus and public approval is not small. Anything you can use, and whatever mechanisms you can get out there, to raise awareness of this process to tell them why it's important and to solicit their participation, I think both this committee and Canada would benefit greatly from.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
According to the results of the survey that you presented for the first time today, you conclude that 3% of Canadians are currently following the consultations. So 19% of the people who were surveyed know that the consultations have started and 16% of them are interested. You are talking about an elite interested in politics.
Overall, according to your monthly and annual surveys or those carried out during various elections, what is the percentage of citizens who truly follow politics and are very familiar with the platforms of the various political parties? Is the percentage about the same?
3:20 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
No, it's probably a little higher than that, particularly on issues they're personally engaged with. This happens to be a particularly esoteric issue.
As I said before, it's a problem that people don't know they have. Few people understand what the solutions are that you're going to bring to the table and how they would improve anything. Right now people don't have a strong problem with the way their parliamentarians are elected.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The minister or the prime minister tells us that the people voted for the Liberals. The two other parties say that the percentage of their votes combined would give them the legitimacy to make this change without consulting the entire population. Can we suppose that, even by adding all those votes, not all the citizens who voted for them were aware of this aspect among the many proposals brought forward and were in favour of it? We are talking about a hundred proposals for each political party. Statistically, could we say that?
3:20 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
What I would say is that people do take promises made during election campaigns seriously. They do believe governments get elected on mandates. Do they understand every component of what a government is elected to do? No, they don't.
The primary reason the Liberals won this last election was that they best represented change. That's what people were voting for. What was the exact nature of that change? If you went through the platform, then you would be basically informing people rather than testing their knowledge. They don't really know.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
To have more legitimacy on such a fundamental issue, would the idea of promising a referendum at the end of the process add a lot of credibility in the eyes of the public regarding the work that we do?
3:25 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
I think what the survey research evidence shows is that there is an expectation that there is going to be an effort made to solicit the opinions of people directly if you're going to change the election system in a fundamental way. To the degree you're successful in doing what Madam May said you will be doing over the space of the next while, I expect that your process will drive up the expectation that there is going to be some form of direct consultation.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Mrs. Romanado will wrap up the first round of questions.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I'd like to thank our esteemed colleagues for being here today.
I have to say that the panel this afternoon has been a little humbling. We've heard that only 3% of the population, mostly older, more educated, affluent men, are watching us closely; that what we're doing may or may not be constitutional;, and that what we're doing may or may not cost us the next election. It's a bit humbling, I must say, but I appreciate your honesty and your frank conversation.
My first question is for Dr. Bricker. In your online poll—and I'm not questioning the validity of your poll—the fact that it was conducted online would reinforce the minister's comments regarding our going after and hearing from the usual suspects. What we're trying to do is to reach out to Canadians across this land to hear what they think about electoral reform and the current system, what's going well, and what isn't going well. Do you have any plans for branching out your polling to use other methods to reach folks who may not have access to the Internet. Since said you were going to continue to do this, could you let us know?
3:25 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
Sure. I would say that the other poll that was conducted used the telephone, and they got exactly the same results that we did.