Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Lucky you.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Well, when you're born on Christmas Day, you don't normally have to go to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's you and the Prime Minister.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Well, I was first. Anyway, I don't brag about that.

I wanted to speak to the amendment, but now I'm speaking I guess to the subamendment moved by Mr. Turnbull.

I don't think it changes what I want to say. I just want to reassure colleagues that there's nothing really here if we leave the wording as it is. The citizens' assembly is going to do what it's going to do, but based on the terms of reference which are set out in paragraph (a) of this motion of Mr. Blaikie's.

All we're doing, as Conservatives, is asking the question of whether or not we should have witnesses appear before this study to speak to whether or not there is a need for a national referendum on something as significant as changing how we elect people. I am presuming, by the wording in this motion, that it's how we elect people in the House of Commons only.

Maybe Mr. Blaikie can answer my questions on this. I have some concerns about only proposing to change one part of a bicameral Parliament. We've seen the unilateral change to one part of our bicameral Parliament implemented by the government now. If people were being honest with themselves around this table, how is that working out? It's not necessarily working out the way that people predicted it would.

I think we should be asking the question, as members of Parliament, to witnesses who appear before the committee as to whether or not a national referendum is actually needed. Everything we do is an option, so using the word “option” is like using the word “the”. It actually makes the words meaningless. We either need one or we don't. It's yes or it's no.

I just think that we're losing the value of the amendment by changing the word from “need” to an “option”, keeping in mind, like I said, that this isn't predetermining any of the terms of reference, should this committee actually adopt this motion and pursue a report. That's clearly laid out in paragraph (a) in Mr. Blaikie's motion, “the terms of reference for such an assembly”. That will be where we need to have that conversation.

As a member of Parliament, I would like to think that we would, as a procedure and House affairs committee, be studying the impacts, not only of the significant proposed changes that might come about for the House of Commons.... I'm not predetermining any of those outcomes.

Look, the reality is that I'd be a member of the governing party right now if we had proportional representation in the last election, because we had the most votes. The notion isn't lost on me. I just think we should be able to ask very direct questions, have witnesses summoned before the committee to talk about the establishment of this national citizens' assembly and talk about how we get to that determination. I want witnesses to appear before the committee to talk about whether or not we need a referendum on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

I did include that in my comments earlier, too, that this is asking whether it's needed or not needed, but there were committee members who felt uncomfortable with that word. We therefore have a subamendment before us.

We'll hear from Mr. Blaikie on that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just say that any Canadians who may be listening at home are getting a little bit of a window into some of the deliberations that happen in camera around committee reports. They perhaps are experiencing some of the frustration that members routinely feel in those meetings about the kinds of things that can light up as an issue unexpectedly.

For me, coming from a construction background, [Technical difficulty—Editor] a deck. It's appropriate at the outset to examine the need for a permit. The language isn't prejudicial there. That is to say, if you're examining the need for a permit, it doesn't mean you've already decided you need one. If you're building a deck in the city of Winnipeg that's less than 24 inches above grade, you don't need a permit. The conclusion of your investigation for the need for a permit will be that you don't need one. If the deck that you're building is 24 inches or higher above grade, the conclusion of your examination as to whether or not you need a permit will be that you do need a permit.

To me, the language here isn't too important. What's important is all the other items of the motion. As I say, one of the things I'd like to do is bring as many people along as possible. I think if Liberals on the committee could see their way to appreciating my niche semantic argument, perhaps [Technical difficulty—Editor] bring everyone along in supporting this motion. I think that would be a great thing. I'm happy to leave the wording as is, if that means that our Conservative colleagues will come along.

I do think the question of a referendum is one that any body, whether it's a committee or a citizens’ assembly, will have to tackle in some way, shape or form. I take the Conservative amendment as just indicating the need to address that question. It's fair to flag that. I have no doubt that it will be part of the debate. It was a very important point of debate. Although I have, I think, ultimately some different feelings from my Conservative colleagues on the committee about the necessity of a referendum, I do think that question, whether it's necessary or not, needs to be addressed in any credible effort to change the voting system.

I'm happy to leave the amendment as it is and move on. We've heard that [Technical difficulty—Editor] committee had some [Technical difficulty—Editor] as well. I think Mr. Turnbull foreshadowed what that might be at our last meeting. I'm excited to hear his proposal and perhaps improve the motion in that way as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

We'll vote now on Mr. Turnbull's subamendment, changing the word “need” to “option”.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. We're back on Mr. Blaikie's motion as amended by Ms. Vecchio's addition of the referendum.

We'll move on to Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair, and happy birthday again.

I too have some thoughts on making a proposed amendment to Mr. Blaikie's motion.

As I mentioned last time, I'm very passionate about the national citizens' assembly being a method of participatory action and research. I think there are many benefits to just opening up this study or this motion to include broader implications for how a national citizens' assembly could be used, because I think the way that Mr. Blaikie has structured his motion is really good in terms of outlining the terms of reference and what the timeline would look like.

I think there are many aspects of how you design and implement a national citizens' assembly that really matter. I think that's the heart of this motion to me: taking into consideration all of those design elements of a process that I think are very substantive and beneficial for building a more inclusive democracy.

Maybe I'll give you the language of my amendment and then speak to you a bit more about why I feel this is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Right after you read it or while you're reading it, can you also give us a copy so we can start circulating it while you speak to it?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I've already sent it to the clerk.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I'll be sending it out just as he moves it. It will be sent out momentarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perfect. Thank you so much, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No problem.

I would like to move that the motion be amended by adding after “(a)-(f)” at the very end of the motion the following:

and that the committee, in the course of this study, also examine the question of how citizen assemblies can be used more generally as a tool to drive citizen engagement in the policy-making process on a wide variety of issues and report its findings to the House in a separate report.

I would like to just speak to this a little bit. I won't take up too much of the committee's time, but this is an area of considerable passion, and it relates to my expertise from my work as a social innovation expert over many years.

The way I see it is that there's a move from a participatory democracy to a deliberative democracy. It's sort of a higher standard, in a sense, in that citizens can engage in the decision-making of the policy-making process. They get to consider relevant information, discuss the issues, come up with options, evaluate those options and develop their thinking together before coming to a common view. This is really significant in terms of a contribution to the health of our democracy. There's been quite a [Technical difficulty—Editor] given to this methodology of a citizens' assembly. I think there are other methodologies, as well, that we could look at. We could actually look at options for how a national citizens' assembly could include some of the other methodologies that are out there.

One that I'm really familiar with is called collective impact, which has had a considerable paradigm shift within the non-profit and charitable sector. Many of the funders across Canada, in fact, are using this methodology of collective impact for tackling large systemic issues like the decarbonization of our economy, for example, and many others, like children's health and nutrition and sustainable food systems. It integrates what we call systems thinking.

I've done this work for 12 years. This is my background: 350 projects over 12 years on all kinds of issues, from housing and homelessness to children's nutrition to immigrant and refugee...to homelessness in the city of Toronto. The list goes on and on. However, the point that I want to make here—and why this has so much potential that I feel really strongly about—is that I think it starts to get at the root causes of the issue in a unique way. It allows a cross-section of stakeholders. In this case, in a national citizens' assembly, it's structured kind of like a large jury. You're taking a quasi-random selection of citizens or laypersons who get to participate in this deliberative process. In a sense, they're policy-makers or solution designers for a complex issue.

The benefit of this, from my perspective, is that people with very different perspectives in the world, very different reference points in a system, different levels of expertise, get to actually deliberate. They share information. They present their diverse points of view, and they really tackle or try to make sense of various information so that they come up with a shared understanding of the problem they're trying to tackle.

In this case, with Mr. Blaikie's motion, it's electoral reform, which is a highly complex issue. However, there are many other complex issues that I think Canada is confronting and we're trying to tackle today, that our government has been steadfast at working on and trying to get to the root causes of those issues. I will say that it's challenging sometimes. What I've found through my practice in this area is that the real shifts happen in large groups when they process information and come to an insight about reframing a problem that's been around for a long time. Part of the power of these processes is that citizens actually undertake a process where they come to realize the variety of perspectives that are out there.

Through that process, through the respect for the diversity of all the different points of view, they come to a better, deeper understanding of a complex systemic problem that they then can reframe together. At the same time, they're developing a shared understanding. In that process, we get a lot of benefits for Canadians. We get a lot of benefits for the policy-making process, and we get a lot of benefits for our democracy.

In my world, you include things like rapid prototyping in it, which is an innovation methodology. Citizens can participate in rapid prototyping solutions, which are sort of an uninhibited way of generating ideas. There are all kinds of other things that I can say about methodologies that relate to how we might design a really effective process.

I think the most important part of it is that process really matters. The design of the process is, I think, the heart, because it has to be inclusive; it has to be diverse; it has to be facilitated in a way that truly brings the minorities, the voices on the fringe, into the centre of the conversation. That's how you reframe problems, because the reality of it is that many of the problems we have that are really deeply entrenched are ones on which we've been stuck in a certain dynamic for a long time and have tried certain solutions. We've tried to whittle away....

Think about food insecurity rising in this country. We live in one of the most prosperous, I think, high-quality-of-life countries in the world, and we have food insecurity. It's a shame that we actually have such high levels of food insecurity. You think, how can an agriculturally rich country with the vastness and natural resources and the quality of life that we have actually have children who are malnourished, who are not getting enough to eat?

Over time, we've tried to get at the root causes, but we really haven't. We haven't got at the root causes, so we have to reframe and understand the problems more deeply.

This isn't a criticism of any government. This is, I think, part and parcel of being stuck in a very specific set of relationships and power dynamics, and a way of understanding the problem that won't allow us to get to new, really innovative solutions that get at the core.

I think I'm being a bit verbose here, so I apologize, but I will just say that there are some things that I think are really important to consider in designing these processes, in which I think the process really matters. For instance, a clearly outlined purpose [Technical difficulty—Editor ] involves how you recruit those people and account for a self-selection kind of bias. Think about people who say they don't want to participate. They're randomly selected, but then they say “No, I don't want to participate.” We know it takes time and money and resources to participate in a process like this, so how do we get voices in the process that might be excluded if we don't basically include those voices that tend to be excluded?

The other thing is that there is often an overrepresentation of certain voices, even within the random selection of citizens, so I think the facilitation of the process really matters and the time scale of the process really matters. I think one of the criticisms of national citizen assemblies is that they take a long time and they can't turn on a dime. It takes time to develop a shared understanding of a complex problem.

Where does it fit in the policy-making process? That's another big question I have, because I think it could be right up front at the very beginning. I read some academics and people who feel it could be integrated even into the Senate in some way, so I think there are a lot of questions around this. That's why I think it's important that this motion also include a broader reflection on how this could be used for many other issues.

I would like to see us look at how we tackle systemic racism in this country at a national level and use this type of process for that, or how we might have it aid in reconciliation with indigenous people. To me, that is extremely important. I think there are a lot of.... Food security is another one that I feel passionate about, but I'm sure we all have many other issues that we could see this being applied to.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] I just want to make sure that I cover this because this is what I'm passionate about this, as you can tell. I think people want more say in what their governments do in general. I think this gives people a sense of agency in the process that they wouldn't otherwise have. It facilitates learning. It transcends the polarization of our political dialogue, which I think is one of the really key values to this type of process. I think it can account for regional differences in Canada, which I think often lead to polarization in our dialogues and debates.

You get buy-in on solutions that are proposed from many different stakeholders, who then may naturally row in the same direction. It engenders trust in the democratic process and the institutions. It builds agreement and acceptance around policy decisions. It demonstrates the many challenges in understanding and tackling complex issues.

I think that sometimes we're tackling these issues and there are other actors in our systems that are tackling these issues, but for whatever reason, the policy-making process is in a bit of silo, and it's very hard to integrate the many actors that are closer to the issue, closer on the ground and who in a way have more expertise than many of us do as policy-makers, but it's very hard to bridge that gap. I think this may be a tool to do that. I think it promotes mutual respect within the diversity and the alternative points of view represented in a process like this. It can really aid us. I fear that our country is becoming more polarized in its debates and dialogues on key issues. I really think that this would have an effect of promoting more diversity and mutual respect of those alternative points of view.

This has been used in Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, the U.K., the U.S. and Canada, and there is no a priori limit to what it could be applied to. I think this is an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role in integrating some of these methodologies, and the national citizens' assembly is one that I think has a lot of potential.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to my colleagues for allowing me the space and time to express my point of view on something I'm quite passionate about. I hope you'll support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks very much.

I have just a couple of things on this one. First of all, I think what it's doing is taking Daniel's motion and talking about even doing a second report. I'm actually wondering if he is trying to bulldoze through Daniel's first action, because Daniel has said that what he wants to do is focus specifically on electoral reform, and that is exactly what this motion is about. This amendment is taking it from doing something very specific to something extremely grand.

When I look at what the mandate of this committee is, I can't find a single thing that goes with what Mr. Turnbull is saying here. This has nothing to do with it when it comes to the procedures and affairs of the House of Commons. I recognize that these are all important issues. I too have many concerns when it comes to security, child care and a variety of very important social issues, but I think those issues need to be addressed in places where they are a part of the mandate, such as the human resources and skills development committee.

I recognize that you're trying to look at a procedural thing when it comes to the assembly, but this is way outside the scope of the House of Commons, as well as outside the scope of this specific committee. I would even question, when we're talking about this, how we would even have a second report and if this is actually even procedurally correct to be doing right now, as we are focused on one, and Mr. Turnbull has put in a request for a second report. Should we not actually just do one report rather than coming up with two?

There are just a few things. I just find that this was.... I feel like I'm back to 101 days of filibustering.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that I think the amendment makes a lot of sense in that what we're going to be hearing in the course of this study, should it proceed.... Of course, we would need the motion to pass today, but we also need for there not to be an election in the summer, which is an important point to make as well. My hope would be that if the best thing doesn't happen, which is to not have an election, we might at least see a future procedure and House affairs committee take seriously the intention of this committee to study this issue. However, in the course of the study as it unfolds, we're going to be hearing, for sure, a lot about electoral reform, but I would expect that we are going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies because the motion is very much about how you would proceed with a citizens' assembly in order to tackle this issue. It would be an alternative to the attempt in the last Parliament that was very much a parliamentary-led Parliament that didn't get the outcome that I know many people who would like to see electoral reform in Canada want.

In the course of that, the committee is going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies in general, as well as citizens' assemblies for the purpose of electoral reform, having a mandate to file that information in a separate report and share it with Parliament so that it isn't lost. It often happens that, by the end of a study, committee members are something like subject experts, although maybe not to the degree of those who do it for a living. Certainly, one of the great privileges of this job is the opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding of a range of issues that come before us in our duties as members of Parliament, and members who are part of this study at the end of it will know a lot more than they already do.

Not all of us have done these kinds of citizen engagement processes for a living in the way that Mr. Turnbull has, so at the end of that, we'll probably have some more general reflections on how citizens' assemblies might be able to be used. It's value added for Canadians if we can compile that information and some of those reflections and submit them formally to the House for the government's consideration and the consideration of Canadians at large who are thinking about how government can make better policy in a way that's more citizen-led.

I think this is information that the committee is going to accumulate in the course of its study in any event, and having a way to codify that and make it useful for more people is a better way to proceed. That's why I'm happy to support this amendment.

The other thing I appreciate about this amendment is that it leaves intact all of the important components about the electoral reform piece, and it allows for a detailed report to be submitted on that particular issue, which I know is very important to all of those of us in Canada who really do want to see a different voting system implemented and would appreciate some straightforward recommendations from this committee on that matter specifically.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Good morning, dear colleagues.

Madam Chair, happy birthday, and we wish you a lovely day and a good year.

I just want to say that I support what Mr. Blaikie has brought forward, and I also support this amendment. I think all of us would agree that politics is about staying in touch with people and about their having their say in their community.

In our community, we work hard to reach out to the community to hear their views, and to hear their ideas. In Etobicoke North, I have had this huge council from day one, and we want to make sure that our association is representative of our wonderful community. I believe the whole point of politics is for people to get involved and to help build a better country.

If we look at some of the data internationally, such as this data from the Pew Research Center, an average of 64% of people across 34 countries do not believe that elected officials really care about what citizens think. We should be disturbed by that.

One solution is to include more deliberation within our democracy, and I think citizen assemblies are an increasingly popular way of doing so. Depending on where they are in the world, they are groups of about 100 people broadly representative of the population, meeting over several weeks or months to debate topics.

I think it's important to broaden it out, and I know Mr. Blaikie has said he is supportive of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I think it's important to broaden it out too. In the past 10 years, the OECD has shown a real increase in citizen [Technical difficulty—Editor] undertaking such a study we can look at how effective they are, where they've been implemented, what the guiding principles are, as well as membership and how members are chosen, how they operate, and whether there's a secretariat. I think there are a lot of questions we could be asking.

I think the question will not be whether deliberative democracy becomes a more intrinsic part of our democratic traditions but rather when and how, so I am strongly supportive of the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I will be very brief.

I don't know whether the interpreters will be able to get this right, but here's a challenge for them. My mom always used to say, “don't bite off more than you can chew.”

I was convinced that the purpose of Mr. Blaikie's motion was to further study the electoral process as a whole. Mr. Turnbull's amendment would expand the study to democratic practices within the parliamentary process.

However, I believe that we should limit ourselves to the electoral process. People are asking themselves questions, and we should be too. We've heard people talk about the need to change the electoral system to proportional representation, because some parties are over‑represented, and others under‑represented.

I don't have the same background as Mr. Turnbull and I am not an expert on the matter. I am but a mere economist. However, my constituents often talk to me about the need to adopt proportional representation. Doing so would allow parties that are disadvantaged by the current electoral system to be better represented and better equipped to speak on behalf of people, who deserve it.

I will stop here. I don't believe that Mr. Turnbull's amendment would be beneficial for us because it weakens the premise of the main motion. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will be defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be brief in my comments because much has already been said.

First and foremost, I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Blaikie for presenting his original motion, and also to thank Mr. Turnbull for his amendments to the motion that he has brought forward today. I think there's a lot of value to both of those.

It's really important that we have this conversation today. It's not at all a filibuster; I just think it's important to share our points of view.

As Mr. Therrien indicated, by no means am I an expert in this matter, like our friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull, but I do certainly believe that having a broader reflection on citizens' assemblies could certainly be beneficial to all of us.

As indicated as well, we certainly know that across the world, citizens' assemblies have been exploding in different countries. There has been a lot of work that's been done in this area.

Just last night during our late-night votes, I was able to do a bit of research as I had a bit of time on my hands. I came across a report from the OECD, which they did in 2020. The report is “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions—Catching the Deliberative Wave”.

The OECD project brought together an iron-clad team of practitioners, designers, academics, researchers, civil servants, and the list goes on, to examine cases where citizens' assemblies have been used across the world for different topics. For me, when I think of citizens' assemblies, I always think about matters related to electoral reform, but when I looked at that report, there were a number of different studies that were done.

Again, this report looked at why we should use citizens' assemblies and how we should use them. There were three things that really struck me. First and foremost, the experts recommended that they should be focusing on value-driven dilemmas, on policy issues where there's no clear right or wrong. The goal is to find the common ground. To me, it made sense when I read that. Another was they should focus on complex problems that require trade-offs. Often, we need to do that. Finally, they should focus on long-term issues that go beyond electoral cycles. We know those are challenging issues that are dealt with regularly.

When I look at all of that, I'm thinking we should really be looking at expanding this study and reflecting on how we could use citizens' assemblies.

Finally, there are a few examples. I'm not going to get into all of this because time is of the essence here.

In Ireland they looked at some really difficult issues, like the issue of access to abortion and climate change to name [Technical difficulty—Editor]. In France they looked at the whole issue of climate change. We know that's a huge issue that we have to deal with. We have to find some common ground there as well. In Germany they looked at the whole issue of their democratic process. In the U.K. they looked at the issue of meeting their net-zero emission targets by 2050.

Again, I think there's a lot we could learn by doing this study.

I know that my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull talked about terms of references and what we could look at with respect to this study. We talked about participants: how we are going to recruit them, how we are going to select them. A lot of work needs to be done with respect to that.

Another part that we didn't really discuss was the learning phase. If we have a citizens' advisory committee that's put together, we're all coming at this with very basic knowledge, although perhaps some have a lot of knowledge. I look at the whole issue of electoral reform three years ago. I think we were all [Technical difficulty—Editor] ways that we could vote. I can certainly imagine what PROC committee members had to go through: using common language, asking what it meant, providing definitions, so we're at least using the same lingo.

I think a lot of work could be done with respect to this study. Again, I support MP Blaikie, but I think that with respect to MP Turnbull's amendment, we could have an even greater study.

I'll leave my comments there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much, Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

I bumped into somebody who was part of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, although I think we did have some at committee as well. I randomly bumped into him. That was a very interesting conversation. Even though things didn't go somewhere, he was still very excited about what he was able to contribute in participating in that process.

Mr. Nater.