Prelude to a Quebec Citizens’ Assembly: Seven Lessons from Ontario’s Experience

(For a French article on the subject, click here)

By David Litvak 

The October referendum on electoral reform in Ontario was a catastrophe. Almost two-thirds of Ontarians voted against the change proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform: 63.1 % were against and 36.9 % for reform. Why? Seven reasons might be identified. 

1.  It Should Have Two Phases 

The first is that a Citizens’ Assembly, or any deliberative institution seeking popular approval for its proposal, should go through a second round of consultations, to get feedback on a full-blown and specific proposal. The Assembly studied, consulted, deliberated and proposed. They should, after having proposed, consulted another time on the specific proposal, get feedback to identify and improve on the people’s main concerns, which may be superficial, but still have to be taken into account when it comes to justifying it as something the citizenry endorses. To do so requires extending the Assembly’s mandate from 8-9 months up to a year and a half. Doing so will also impact positively on societal debate.

First lesson: Extend the Assembly’s mandate and go through a double consultation phase, firstly a general brainstorming on reform and secondly a consultation on a full-blown and specific proposal.

 

2.  Much More Sophisticated and Integrated Public Information Campaign 

Secondly, and most importantly, the citizens weren’t correctly or adequately informed. A few days before polling, a quarter of the voters said they knew nothing about the Citizens’ Assembly proposal, while half said they knew only a little. Another quarter said they knew a lot. Previous polls also indicated that 60 % of decided voters who knew a lot about the proposal supported it, while 60 % of those who knew nothing were planning to vote against it. Simply put, inadequate information clearly played in favor of the status quo.

Unfortunately, the means to inform the citizens were not in the Citizens’ Assembly hands, but in the hands of the government. Its own party interest influenced it to surreptitiously fight reform. It is imperative to ensure that every household gets a copy of the Citizens’ Assembly report, explaining why it suggested the proposed change. In Ontario, Publications Ontario gave in to reform opponents’ protests and stopped printing and distributing the Citizens’ Assembly report early in the campaign. The Assembly’s report had been distributed to all households in B.C. The toothless information campaign led by Elections Ontario was also vigorously denounced.  

He poorly informed voters didn’t know where the proposal came from. Previous research demonstrated that voters based their decision not only on the proposal itself, but mostly, actually, on the fact that those proposing were ordinary citizens’ like themselves. Stressing this fact is important in legitimizing the proposal.

 

Finally, the government delayed conveying the Assembly until a year before the referendum date thus effectively squeezing the societal debate period to five months. This impeded the information campaign. The group heading the “Yes” campaign, Vote for MMP, therefore strongly suggested that there should not only be more time for the Assembly to deliberate, but also more time for society to deliberate on its proposal.

 

Second lesson: Lobby and fight for a quick setting up of the Assembly at the beginning of the government’s mandate and especially for an adequate public information campaign lasting at least a full year.

 

3. Hold a Special Referendum for the Citizens’ Assembly Proposal

Holding the referendum jointly with general elections might also not have been such a good idea. Doing so may save some money and may boost voter turnout, but uninformed voters clearly biased the vote in this case. The political office election also clearly overshadowed the referendum debate. It might be better, as some Assembly members have suggested, to hold the referendum on a separate and distinct date, to ensure that those voters going to the polls have a fair amount of interest in the subject. However, a well done information campaign and societal debate might eliminate or lessen the poor information bias. The overshadowing effect might also be tempered by a well-driven information campaign. This proposal is therefore debatable.

Third Lesson: Hold a distinct referendum to avoid being overshadowed by the party platform debate on electing candidates for office.

 

4. Don’t Hold a Referendum without a Strong Grassroots’ Movement

The reform movement in Ontario was not as strong as it was in British Columbia, or as it presently is in Quebec. Fair Vote B.C. was spearheading electoral reform in the field way before the government agreed to hold a referendum. They had, with Nick Loenen heading that organization, a good power base and network ready to act once referendum time came. Result: 58 % for reform in B.C., 36 % in Ontario. This is not to say that the Vote for MMP group, or that Fair Vote Ontario, an offshoot of Fair Vote Canada, weren’t as enthusiastic or didn’t do as good a job, but they might not have had as much time to build-up a grass-root organization which could stimulate and reinforce debate in Ontario on the subject.

Quebec is possibly the province with the strongest reform movement. There are no less than five major groups defending electoral reform in Quebec: the Movement for New Democracy, the Feminism and Democracy Collective, the Association for Democratic Rights, the Quebec Democracy and Citizenship Movement and the Campaign for a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in Quebec. (1) Three groups are lobbying the government to change the electoral system itself, another is taking the matter to the Supreme Court while yet another is asking for a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. There are also numerous political or academic personalities ready to act on reform, once they have the opportunity. A deliberative process in Quebec, therefore, would have much better chances of succeeding than it did in Ontario.

Fourth lesson: Make sure the Citizens’ Assembly concludes a well developed societal deliberation on the subject that has strong grassroots organizational support.

 

5. Fight for a Simple Majority Threshold

The B.C. and Ontario governments, almost always themselves elected by a minority of votes, fixed a 60 % threshold for the referendum proposal to be subsequently adopted by Parliament. The Campaign for a Citizens’ Assembly in Quebec is also asking for a simple majority threshold. The situation in Quebec is perhaps a bit different, since Quebecers are used to referendums... Two referendums were held in 1980 and 1995 on sovereignty. Naturally, the threshold was fixed at simple majority. Because of this tradition and experience, there is little risk that a government could actually publicly defend setting a supermajority threshold. If you can create an independent state with a single majority, setting a supermajority threshold to change the electoral system simply sounds and is ridiculous.

Fifth lesson: Fight for a simple majority threshold and preemptively denounce the scheme if the government decides otherwise.

 

6. Make Sure the Citizens’ Assembly is Independent

There is another provision that the campaign in Quebec seeks: that the Citizens’ Assembly president be elected by the Assembly itself. The campaign is suggesting that the principals of the five main universities in Quebec each present a candidate, and that the Assembly votes amongst them to elect their president. Such a process will allow for a debate on how to organize the Citizens’ Assembly proceedings.

This proposed process would also avoid having governmental interference in the process. The president has many roles, but one of them is crucial: selecting the administrative staff, including those who produce the research and public education. These people’s ideas will undoubtedly influence the Assembly members. At the least, they should be selected by a president chosen by the Assembly. Better still, they should be pre-selected by a citizens’ committee and nominated directly by the Assembly itself.

Sixth lesson: Make sure the president and the research staff are selected by the Assembly.

 

7. Ask for a Citizens’ Assembly at the Onset of the Reform Campaign

The situation in Quebec is a bit particular, since the idea of having a Citizens’ Assembly wasn’t amongst the reform process options at the onset of the reform campaign. A lobbying campaign was therefore set in motion, asking the government to change the electoral system itself. This way of doing things hasn’t yet been successful, because the government is constantly delaying reform, and the only reform proposed by government is far short of the reform movement’s expectations, in fact, it is politically motivated.

Final lesson: Set the pace by asking for a Citizens’ Assembly early in the reform campaign.  

Under the conditions summed-up in this article, the Citizens’ Assembly as a reform strategy is still the best way to make sure reform is done, and that it is done in the citizens’ interests. It remains the most effective and efficient way to do reform. The integrated Citizens’ Assembly-Referendum process still however has to be perfected. Quebec might be the first province to do so, but, admittedly, it will require a major shift within the Quebec reform movement and a mighty will to induce democratization of the wobbly process first tried out in British-Colombia and Ontario. 

*The author heads the Campaign for a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in Quebec (in French):

 

(1) None of these groups has an official English name.  Their French names are: Mouvement pour une démocratie nouvelle, Collectif Féminisme et Démocratie, Association pour la revendication des droits démocratiques, Mouvement Démocratie et Citoyenneté du Québec and Campagne pour une Assemblée citoyenne sur la réforme du mode de scrutin au Québec.