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.
2:45 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
They have it within their power to do this if they wish to act unilaterally.
2:50 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
Whether that would be a change that lasts, I'll just say that I don't think it would guarantee them re-election, contrary to the view expressed in Policy Options.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for contributing to the work of the committee.
To use a common expression, I would say that your words, especially Mr. Gibson’s, are like music to my ears. My colleagues must have recognized some of my questions and comments in your remarks. Legitimacy is the basis for legality. Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. We have seen this during the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. The judges of the Supreme Court considered it legal, but illegitimate.
Actually, if we want to change the democratic rules of Canadian society and the Canadian parliamentary system, we have to clarify which Canada we are talking about. Are we talking about the Canada of 1867 or the one after 1982? We cannot strictly reduce the Quebec nation to a geographic region or an ethno-linguistic minority.
That said, I think the deadlines we have to meet are not realistic. I also think that by calling a referendum, the goal is not to hinder the desire for change. In Quebec, as the official opposition critic for democratic institutions, I followed closely British Columbia's approach to the reform. I think the problem was the 60% formula. In my view, the 50% plus one formula needs to be the rule in democracy, even for changes of this nature. So we must figure out which process leads to this change. However, it seemed to me that British Columbia was a shining example.
Could you comment on that?
2:50 p.m.
As an Individual
You're talking in particular about the threshold as 50% and then 60%?
You can argue it both ways. Some matters—and I'll stick my neck out here—such as with Quebec's separation, once you get a vote of 50% plus one, the world has changed the very next day because you now have an item of instability that must be dealt with.
On the other hand, when you have an existing constitution that is working adequately, you may want to have a higher hurdle rate. I personally was very disappointed that the B.C. reform didn't go through because of the higher hurdle rate, but nevertheless I've never criticized that. I appreciate there are arguments that constitutional documents should have greater stability in order that the polity itself can rely on them.
I repeat that the matter of Quebec's separation, 50% plus one, is a different issue. I'm not talking about the existing Canadian Constitution, so—
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In terms of the reform, I can understand your opinion on the issue of the Quebec nation. In terms of changing the voting system, I don't share your opinion on the constitutional aspects. I would like to hear the answers of the three witnesses on this.
I think the 50% plus one formula is sufficient, and you will understand why. If it is sufficient constitutionally or for the issue of the Quebec nation, it is also sufficient for the change of democratic rules.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Thériault, are you asking each of the witnesses the question?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
I don't think so.
Particularly to the extent that it is a change of formula, you are then changing the power balance among the provinces even without a change in the numeric constituency makeup of Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
I don't have a comment on that.
2:50 p.m.
As an Individual
We have an established rule for changing our Constitution, which takes into account the various regions of the country for their own protection and for the unity of the country.
For example, we're going to establish a national citizens' assembly. I think they too should have a voting rule which is based upon the amending formula of the Constitution, which would be 7-50.
August 31st, 2016 / 2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
First of all, thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
I want to start with Darrell Bricker. In looking at polling information, I'm not terribly surprised. I want to walk through with you why I think the level of public awareness of this committee's work, although we're very engaged in it, hasn't yet caught the attention of Canadians. I'm not surprised. All our meetings so far have been in our first phase of work in the summertime here in Ottawa. We as a committee will be, as they say, “hitting the road”, and between mid-September and just after Thanksgiving, we will be holding public sessions in every province and territory, including with open mike sessions to which anyone can come. We are attempting to be as inclusive and participatory as possible. There are also, as you know, town hall meetings, which not every MP is holding but many are holding.
In any case, I would be gratified to know if you would continue to ask those same questions as we get past Labour Day, and at a period of time where we believe, or at least I believe as a member of this committee, we will be hearing from and connecting with, and, I hope, raising awareness through media coverage of these meetings as they take place across the country. In a way we currently have not made a dent in terms of being a public event. We haven't done anything to attract attention. We haven't been on beaches shirtless. We've been really low-key.
I'm wondering, if we go past Labour Day in the way in which we plan, whether you have any expectations yourself that you could keep checking to see if we've made a dent.
2:55 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
Absolutely. I think this is a critical issue for the country and at IPSOS we're always polling on issues that are critical to the country. I think we have a good baseline to work from. I'll be interested to see how it grows.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm also gratified that you asked the same question. I believe it was EKOS that put forward the formulation, “Some people say that any change...”, as you've already read out.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Their numbers aren't very far different from yours, at about fifty-fifty.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That question of legitimacy is on a knife-edge, then. I think everyone around this committee, me included, thinks that changing our voting system requires public trust and confidence, which gets translated into the word “legitimacy”. A referendum is one way, potentially. I have concerns about it; but let's say legitimacy can be conveyed through a referendum. Legitimacy can be conveyed through a public process and deliberation. Legitimacy can also be conveyed through citizens' assemblies. We've heard a lot of different proposals for how one would convey legitimacy.
I'm going to turn pretty shortly to Dr. Johnston to ask a question, to follow up on that, but do you have any comments on the range of things that convey public trust and legitimacy?
2:55 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
I think that once you get people at least aware of the fact that this is happening and this is being considered—by the way, being elected on that platform does not constitute awareness, as you already saw—and they become more engaged in it, particularly if they perceive there's something important about this and that they need to pay attention, I think they'd be open to looking at a number of different options.
I also think that the more you talk about it, the more likely people will be asking to really be engaged through some process that directly solicits their opinion, rather than just going to a town hall session or having their views mediated through some other mechanism.