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.
4:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It seems to me this is a potential debate where spinning mistruths and myths, as was done yesterday.... That one snapshot view of one set of elections in Europe suddenly made proportional systems equivalent to having anti-immigration parties, despite 60 to 80 years of vast understanding showing that's not the case. Then that myth got propounded again here today. The advantage goes to those mythmakers when talking about electoral reform.
Mr. Gibson, you went through this. You watched this group of British Columbians attempt to allow change to take place in their communities. How important is it for us to have champions, outside the political people involved, who are explaining and bringing in input from other Canadians?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It is absolutely central. As a matter of fact you just summarized the last sentence of the the book, When Citizens Decide, which reads: “So, even when citizen assemblies prove to be an instance of intense participatory, deliberative, and epistemic democracy, the setting in which assemblies exist may undo all the good they are able to achieve.” In other words, the sales job that's done on the production job is absolutely crucial, and that, in turn, depends upon the context and the political support.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In Ontario, a citizens' assembly proposed some changes, yet many of the political parties and political actors, including the Toronto Star editorial board were picking away at it, shooting it down. It showed itself to be an influence as compared to....
Yes? Would you agree with that? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My colleague made an argument for the mixed-member proportional voting method in which each vote must count. He mentioned that, in the last election, the votes of nine million people did not count.
When I bring this up with people in my constituency, they all wonder which options would be open to them if there were to be a change. I explain the different voting methods to them, I tell them about the mixed-member proportional vote and I explain that the number of constituencies would have to be reduced by about half. I use myself as an example and I tell them that their MP would have to have a larger constituency. Now, I represent a rural constituency that includes 40 municipalities. If I was newly elected in a larger constituency, I could easily double that number of municipalities.
But my constituents say that their priority is to have access to their MP so that they can tell him about their concerns and so that he can properly represent them in Ottawa and properly bring forward their concerns for society.
So that makes me a little distrustful of this model. When people tell me that they want to have access to their MP and I think about the time that MPs spend in Ottawa, almost eight months per year, I try to imagine what I would do in a different situation.
I would like to put some questions to our three witnesses and I would like them to give yes or no answers. Do you consider that the procedure established by the current government is a good one, yes or no?
Go ahead, Mr. Gibson.
4:15 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
I think it depends on outcome. I totally agree.
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
I think the insistence on some form of answer before the end of this Parliament is the best guarantee that nothing will happen.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Yes or no: do you consider that the government has allocated a reasonable amount of time in order to fulfill this mandate of reforming the voting system, as they announced to the people in advance?
What is your opinion, Mr. Gibson?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
If the committee does not like the time period, you should ask for an extension.
4:15 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
It is going to be a challenge. It's a very short period of time for something so important.
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
I've basically given you my answer.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Gibson, would you be in favour of the committee ultimately recommending a referendum to legitimize this whole approach, yes or no?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
In my opinion, yes, any significant change in the electoral system should be subject to validation by the public in a referendum.
4:15 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
My personal preference doesn't matter. I would just report what we reported in the survey, which is that that's what the public's looking for.
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
I have a more complicated answer.
I think the legitimacy of the result requires some sort of dialogue, as it were, between this committee and something else. It doesn't have to be the whole electorate in referendum.
As I said in my opening remarks, I don't think the population really demands to be consulted, notwithstanding the survey result. The concern is that whatever is proposed can somehow credibly be detached from the interests of any single party representative here, or possibly even the parties that happen to populate the Commons now. Some sovereign entity, not a citizens' assembly or an expert body or whatever, has to choose. I think it could actually be the Parliament of Canada, if it is asked to choose in a way that in some sense forces its hand between the status quo and an alternative that is defensible.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Are you in the 50% of the people who are satisfied with the current voting method, yes or no?
Let me start with you, Mr. Johnston.
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Richard Johnston
It is an alloyed bad when the support is so low, but it's not an unalloyed bad.
4:20 p.m.
CEO, IPSOS Public Affairs, As an Individual
So you're asking if 50% plus one would be sufficient?
