Electoral Reform Committee on Aug. 31st, 2016

[Darrell Bricker]

At this time in Canadian history, as I said before, with all of the most educated, most literate population in this country, and the best technology to give people an opportunity to have a direct say, it's really hard to come out and tell people they can't have that form of participation. I'm not saying it's the best way to proceed, but I'm just telling you what the nature of public demand is.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Gibson, based on your practical political experience, what would be the potential political consequences if the governing party were to ram through changes without giving people a say in a referendum on those changes?

[Gordon Gibson]

If you decide to have a referendum, you won't lose. You hand the problem to the people. You say, here's the best we can do, or here's the best a committee of Parliament can do, now you tell us. You can't lose on that one.

You can lose if you say this is what we—our political party—want to do, and make it a political issue. You can really lose on that one.

Why lose when you don't have to? Punt the ball to the people, who really deserve to carry it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think that is an absolutely great piece of advice. I certainly hope the Liberal members—and I see that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Democratic Institutions is joining us today—are listening and will choose to take that advice, because I think it's a vital and important piece of advice. It's something the Canadian want, and it's something the Canadian people deserve. Thank you very much for your opinion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go now to Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Gibson, I'd like to carry on this conversation that we've just been having. First of all, I was looking at your brief and your statement in it that “Every party makes unwise promises”. Then I look at the how we Liberals had electoral reform in our campaign commitments, as did the NDP and the Greens. You are saying that 60% of the parties had unwise promises and and that 63% of Canadians voted for those unwise promises. To me, I think, is there nothing there? I'm not saying that we have a full mandate or legitimacy, or whatever, it's just that the Liberals aren't the only ones who made this commitment.

Then you made the comment that we don't have torchlit parades on the issue, that we're not falling apart. I tend to think, isn't this the time to have the discussion? I would hate to get into the situations in B.C. you mentioned, where the system goes horribly awry, and we end up with a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people, and then we're stuck with it for four years. We've heard from other witnesses that in that circumstance, there's very little political appetite to change it because it's working for that party.

I actually think this is the time to have the discussion with Canadians. A lot of Canadians have said they're ready for this kind of discussion.

You were involved in the B.C. process and I'd just like to know, from your perspective, was that a success or a failure?

[Gordon Gibson]

First of all, there is of course much merit in what you say about planning ahead. Second, I don't agree that just because three parties promised electoral reform and 61% of the people voted for them, they voted for that issue, because there were a lot of issues being voted for. Third, Jean Chrétien promised to get rid of the GST and carried on as Prime Minister for a number of years thereafter.

Coming to your more direct question, I think the B.C. citizens' assembly was a great success. It was acknowledged to be by virtually everyone.

Richard, your research will have something to say about this, but indeed it is very clear that one of the main reasons the proposal of the citizens' assembly got the majority it did was that people trusted the assembly process. It wasn't because they understood STV—most people would say, “What is this stuff?”—but they trusted that a group of their citizens had worked hard and long for a year to come up with something in good faith and that they were objective, disinterested people.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

On that, I live in B.C., and we still have first past the post. Great work went into that. There were great minds. Our fellow citizens came up with recommendations, yet through a referendum process it failed. I guess I just get a bit concerned when there is talk of a referendum or other.... Bars can be set to ensure that nothing changes. I have a real concern, sitting at this table, that we are perhaps, from some fronts more than others, positioning to make sure this fails.

[Gordon Gibson]

As Mr. Thériault says, you don't have to set the bar at 60%, where British Columbia did. You can set the bar at 50% plus one, or anywhere else you like.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

We have heard a number of times that consensus at this table is going to be needed, so we need consensus at this table to come up with that. Will we have to have a consensus agreement that 50% plus one is needed, or some other threshold, to gain legitimacy for the process? I am just trying to understand. If we end up with a consensus report, does that give us enough legitimacy with the process that we have embarked upon to perhaps bypass or forgo the idea of a referendum? Are there other options that will get us there, to actually move forward this conversation, so we don't have the torchlit parade down the road?

[Gordon Gibson]

I think you can absolutely take to the bank the proposition that the more consensus this committee can achieve, the better chance you have at making change.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

Is there still a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 40 seconds. That includes the answer.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Bricker, really quickly, have you done anything on online or mandatory voting? Have you seen any research on that with Canadians?

[Darrell Bricker]

No, I haven't personally.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay. I wasn't sure if you might have asked questions on that.

I will leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

Mr. Cullen, you have the floor.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I was just reflecting on John's comments there. We proposed a version of the citizens' assembly here, back in February. I wish you had been working in the minister's office or had some influence, because then we could have had this happening in parallel and the legitimacy question would have been enhanced for all of us.

I have a small correction, Mr. Johnston. My riding is about 95,000 people. It also just happens to be bigger than Poland.

Something that seems to be dismissed in a lot of this conversation is that nine million votes by Canadians in the last election are not reflected in our Parliament. It seems like such a casual dismissal in the questioning. I don't accuse you of omitting it from the answer, but I am thinking about the Conservative voter in Toronto, the New Democrat voter in the Maritimes, or the Liberal voter on Vancouver Island. In some cases Liberals, or whoever, received 25% or 30% of the vote, or the winning MP, in this distorted system we have, received less than a third of the support from their constituents, yet we maintain this fallacy that this person is as clear a representative as under any other system. I would argue, on an intuitive level, as Mr. Bricker said, that they are not.

Have you posed the question, Mr. Bricker, of the idea—it has been shot down here by Mr. Johnston, but supported by other witnesses—of trying out a new voting system and then having the test, the buy-it-back proposal, where citizens are able to say, “We don't like what we have seen, and we would like to cast it to the side”?

[Darrell Bricker]

No, I haven't done any research on that, but I would expect that if what we are talking about right now requires as much explanation and work as I think it will require, going that next step will probably be even.... If you are already a bridge too far, you have probably gone about five bridges too far.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The question of change is part of your business. You ask questions about change, when changes are proposed. From my perspective, dealing with voters through five elections now, there generally seems to be an inherent resistance to change, particularly if it is complex change. If this is your cup of coffee, but there is this great store down the way with better coffee, but I can't explain it to you, really, because it would take too long—but it is better—most voters would say, “Even if it is better, even if the price is better”, or whatever, “I am going to stay with what I know, because you can't explain what is coming.” Is that not inherent to this? When we get into the questions about referenda and about straight polling—do you want to keep what you have, or do you want something new—the ability to explain the “new” is as critical as whatever the new happens to be. Is that fair to say?

[Darrell Bricker]

What I would say, first of all, is that in the last election, people clearly voted for change and they're happy with it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right.

[Darrell Bricker]

When people are presented with the proposition of change, when they feel there is enough reason for change, they have no difficulty jumping onboard. In fact, it drove up voter turnout in the last election to a very high level.

On a specific proposition, which is what you're asking about, if you're incapable of explaining to people why this change benefits them, they will say no.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, so if I say to the people you poll, “Your vote will count regardless of whom you vote for and where you cast that vote in the country”, would that be an interesting question to—

[Darrell Bricker]

Yes, absolutely. It will be one that I'll ask.

You're right behind her on the list.