The clock is ticking. The deadline for the special committee on electoral reform to recommend changes to the way Canadians elect MPs is next Thursday; the committee must form a consensus by the end of this week for its report to be translated in time.

“This week is crunch time,” said one member of the committee. The committee was scheduled to meet for nearly five hours on Wednesday behind closed doors in the Centre Block, with a final meeting set for Thursday evening.

Is there a deal in the making, or will the committee split along predictable party lines and submit minority reports?

The New Democrats opened the door to an opposition consensus last week when its democratic reform critic, Nathan Cullen, said the NDP had no problem with holding a referendum on a consensus recommendation. That meets the Conservatives’ bottom line — that whatever is recommended must be put to the people in a referendum.

This the second time the Liberals have been outflanked by Cullen. The first time was on the composition of the committee itself. Normally, on a standing committee of 10 members, the government would have six seats, the Official Opposition three and the third party — the NDP — just one. The Greens and Bloc Québécois, lacking recognized party status in the House, have no seats on standing committees.

In May, Cullen proposed and the government accepted a special committee of 12 members in which the opposition parties have a majority — three Conservatives, two New Democrats, Green Leader Elizabeth May and one member of the Bloc. The Liberals have four members and the non-voting chair, Francis Scarpaleggia, who has been impeccably fair and impartial throughout the proceedings.

Cullen’s referendum gambit opens the door to a seven-member opposition consensus on some kind of partial proportional representation that would retain single member ridings elected by first-past-the-post (FPTP), while adding a certain number of seats on a provincially proportional basis according to the parties’ share of the popular vote.

The Liberals would then have to choose whether to join such a consensus. Or not.

Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef has expressed a preference for a consensus. “I’ve asked them for one report as opposed to each party providing their own minority report,” she said in a Q&A in the November issue of Policy magazine.

On both the referendum question and the proposed reform model, Liberal MPs wouldn’t want to be left in the awkward position of government members filing a minority report. On both the referendum question and the proposed reform model, Liberal MPs wouldn’t want to be left in the awkward position of government members filing a minority report.

As for a referendum — an idea she opposes — she allows that if “the committee comes back and makes a recommendation with a referendum being that tool, whether or not their proposed reforms have the support of Canadians, then we have to take that seriously.”

The Liberals have four first-term MPs on the committee, and they’ve been very collegial, asking good questions all along the way. They’ve been neither proposing the party line nor holding to it. But on both the referendum question and the proposed reform model, they wouldn’t want to be left in the awkward position of government members filing a minority report.

If there were to be a referendum, would the question call for a simple Yes or No, or would it ask voters to choose from a menu of options?

In this regard, the recent non-binding plebiscite in Prince Edward Island was interesting and innovative. Sixteen and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote, Islanders could vote by phone or online, and the polls were open for more than a week. But in a province where 80 per cent turnouts are the norm in elections, and where everyone knows everyone, only 36.5 per cent of Islanders participated.

In a preferential ballot, FPTP led on the first three rounds with 43 per cent, while a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system emerged with a majority of 53 per cent on the fourth round. The ranked ballot system used to conduct the plebiscite was itself the second least popular choice.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has suggested a ranked ballot is his personal preference, one that would assure majority outcomes rather than the pluralities prevalent under FPTP. But he’s given no suggestion the government might impose a preferred reform and Monsef has said “we are not interested in leveraging our majority in this place to move any reforms forward because this is not about us.”

If there is to be a committee consensus, the most achievable recommendation would be some kind of MMP system — retaining the 338 FPTP seats, while adding perhaps another 100 provincially proportional pop-vote seats.

This would comply with Section 52 of the Constitution Act, which states that “the number of members of the House of Commons may be increased from time to time provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this Act is not disturbed.”

Under such an MMP system, Ontario — with 13.9 million people out 36.3 million Canadians — would receive another 38 proportional members divided by the pop-vote, in addition to its 121 members in the current House. Quebec, with 8.3 million people, would receive 23 new proportional seats in addition to its current 78 seats. British Columbia, with 4.7 million people, would receive 13 new seats in addition to its 42 FPTP seats. Alberta, with 4.2 million people, would receive 12 proportional seats in addition to its current 36 seats.

And so on down the line. While a MMP system would give third parties more seats in House, it would not favour splinter parties if there was a legislated threshold of, say, 5 per cent of the vote in any province to qualify for a seat. In other words, this would give the Greens a couple of more seats in B.C., but none for the Rhinos.

It’s simple, understandable and achievable. If a consensus is coming, this could be it.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.