The Liberal government needs to hold a referendum on electoral reform because not doing so would be undemocratic, the Conservatives charge.

That position isn’t likely to change, but there is something the Liberals could do to take some of the sting out of the critique, many — including Conservatives — agree: convene a citizens’ assembly on electoral reform and let a randomly-selected, demographically-representative group of Canadians propose the best path forward.

It’s already been done twice at the provincial level, in B.C. and Ontario, and Queen’s University political studies professor Jonathan Rose — academic director of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform — believes it could and should be done federally.

“A country in a room,” is how he puts it.

After Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a citizens’ assembly would explore electoral reform in November 2004, Ontario’s Election Act was amended and an all-party committee was established to consider its terms of reference.

Eventually, 123,489 electors were sent letters asking if they’d participate in the assembly, to which 7,033 responded affirmatively.

Subsequently, 1,253 were invited to a selection meeting and 103 were chosen — one for what was then every electoral district in the province.

The process was run by Elections Ontario, which selected members between May and July 2006, undertook a learning phase between September and November 2006, a consultation phase between November 2006 and February 2007, a deliberation phase between February and April 2007, and delivered a final report on May 15, 2007 that called for mixed-member proportional representation system.

It was a similar process in B.C., where Elections BC eventually chose 161 members — a man and a woman for each of the 79 electoral districts along with two aboriginal members. The B.C. assembly recommended a single transferable vote system.

To create their assembly, B.C. needed to make a regulatory change that allowed the chief electoral officer to use voter list data. Federally, the Canada Elections Act would need to be amended.

“We’ve had two province-wide citizens assemblies, in British Columbia and Ontario, where randomly-selected citizens representing all ages and a wide demographic cross-section did demonstrate the incredible power for citizens to deliberate well,” Rose said at a recent event on electoral reform at the University of Ottawa.

“They told us that citizens have the time, and interest, and most importantly — capacity — to make this important decision.”

Like almost everything related to the file, the Liberals haven’t ruled it out.

“The Government remains committed to strike an all-party parliamentary committee to examine a wide range of electoral reform options in a fair and comprehensive way,” Maryam Monsef, the minister of democratic institutions, said in a statement provided to iPolitics.

“I understand people are looking forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to the consultations the committee will undertake and the format these consultations will take.”

In rolling out eight principles a few weeks ago that she said will guide the electoral reform process, Monsef also acknowledged that, thus far, she’s found little in the way of consensus.

That’s something Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid, like Rose, thinks could be achieved through a citizens’ assembly.

“It’s different if it’s a deliberative body — like a citizens’ assembly — but I assume they’re not doing that. Maybe they are,” he told iPolitics in an interview last week.

However, a citizens’ assembly, he added, has “traditionally been followed by a referendum on what the citizens’ assembly recommended.”

More precisely, there have been referendums following the assemblies in B.C. and Ontario. And the Liberals don’t seem interested in a referendum.

For his part, Rose doesn’t think there needs to be one. A citizens’ assembly would suffice.

“I don’t think it’s necessary if the deliberation that goes into the process is robust enough — that there’s a meaningful and thoughtful conversation among Canadians,” he said in a Tuesday interview.

“Referendums are notoriously blunt instruments, they don’t really get at preferences in sophisticated way. One of the great mechanisms is, you have a broad selection of Canadians in a citizens’ assembly who stand in for the the public and do the work of a referendum.”

Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s democratic reform critic, likes the idea of a citizens’ assembly — but he doesn’t think there’s time left for one because Monsef and the Liberals have taken so long to get the ball rolling.

“With the Liberals having wasted six months so far, it limits what you can and can’t do, obviously. Because Elections Canada needs a certain amount of time to bring in whatever new voting system…we’ll likely have to change the riding boundaries, so that’s work,” he said.

“A citizens’ assembly — I don’t believe we would have the time for them to go out, pick the assembly, do it properly, consultations…and then begin the parliamentary process. It would mean that Mr. Trudeau would be breaking his promise (to make the 2015 election the last fought under the first-past-past-the post system).”

Instead, Cullen and the NDP envision a citizens’ committee running parallel to the all-party parliamentary committee, which would provide the parliamentary committee the principles and core values that go into the new voting system.

It would come from a broad group of Canadians, but also try to include underrepresented Canadians — those who don’t tend to vote and those who don’t have a lot of power.

“There are lots of options to put the groups together. Certainly the government would have to have a significant role in it, in helping form the process. But all the parties could get together, and rather than pick individuals, call forward interests — from First Nations, from women, from youth — have a range of experts on the panel,” Cullen said.

Rose said he’d need more details on what the NDP are proposing, but he rejected the assertion there isn’t enough time for a citizens’ assembly.

“It’s a great instrument, because it can be scaled. That’s what I love about citizens’ assemblies. It’s not one-size-fits-all,” he explained.

He was just in Lethbridge, he added, making a pitch to the city for why a citizens’ assembly might be good to consider for an ongoing debate on whether city councillors should be full or part-time.

“People look at B.C. and Ontario, they seem to think that’s the model. I think that’s the best version of the model, but it can be done differently,” Rose said.

“No question there would be time. Remember, in Ontario and B.C. we had a large group of randomly-selected Canadians designing a new electoral system. We’re not asking them to necessarily design the details of an electoral system.”

In this case, they might just need to make a decision about the best system, or the principles that should guide it.

“That’s a much less onerous task. It need not be a year,” he said.