SoVote

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/3/23 10:28:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak today at this unique sitting. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend in person. Because of my inability to be on an airplane at this point in my life due to having had a stroke, and I am, as you see, recovering quite well, I cannot participate in person, which means I also cannot vote, which is a terrible shame. I am participating this way because I want to make sure this election for the Speaker takes into account what I think are the essential elements for the next Speaker of the House. We must follow our rules. For me, this is essential. If you walk down the back corridor behind the Speaker's chair, you will see the portraits of former Speakers. I do think you should pause in front of the portrait of Lucien Lamoureux, who served this place from 1966 to 1974. He was the best of all of our Speakers. He personified nonpartisanship. Elected as a Liberal in the government of Lester B. Pearson, when Lucien Lamoureux ran for re-election as a sitting Speaker, he did so twice as an independent. He also applied our rules, which meant he was not always popular, and he was not elected. He was able to enforce the rules. Everyone who has spoken has said our rules are important, but on a daily basis we ignore Standing Orders 16 and 18, which require that we respect one another and that we treat each other with respect. I completely agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer. Respect is of the utmost importance. However, we have made it a habit to flout our rules. We ignore our rules at our peril. I cite the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for his service, and the tragedy that unfolded in this place could have been avoided if we had followed our rules. There are rules about recognizing visitors in the galleries. In this case, it is clear that the rules were broken in acknowledging that man's presence. I know that because I tried to convince the former Speaker to recognize someone whom I thought did deserve recognition in our gallery, only to be told that Dr. David Suzuki did not qualify, so I know the rules represent a steep hill to climb to have someone recognized in the gallery. I cannot imagine how this happened, but I also agree words are not enough. That moment in this House brought back the words of the late Irving Abella, who said that in our history it was easier to gain entry to Canada as a Nazi than as a Jew. I think we have to do more than say we are sorry. I think we have to atone and open up the records of the Deschênes commission. We have to look at our history, just as we do on the day of truth and reconciliation for the injustices and genocide toward indigenous peoples. We must follow our rules. The Speaker's role is essential, as the Speaker is the only person who can decide who speaks in question period. It has been 40 years that the Speaker has broken the rules every single day, regardless what Speaker we are talking about, by accepting a list from a party whip that tells him or her who speaks and in what order. That abomination has moved the system of rewards and punishments from the Speaker to the party whip. The party whips are not the people we want to please if we want this place to operate with respect and to make Canadians look at the House of Commons and think, “There is a place I respect; that is democracy in action.” We can try harder and we can do better. It is possible. All of those running in this election are more than qualified to be good Speakers of the House. If it were my honour to fill that role, I cannot tell you how overwhelmed I would be. However, I think it is not likely, and I encourage you to vote for the person you think will be your best Speaker. I pledge my support to the next Speaker, whoever is brave enough to go back to following our rule that only the Speaker chooses who speaks in question period. This was confirmed when the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker of the House, in April 2013 on a point of order from the late Mark Warawa. It would no doubt improve our proceedings enormously. With that, I wish you all the best of luck. Good luck to all of my colleagues who are hoping to be the next Speaker. I miss you all and cannot wait to see you all again. You know I love you all. I really miss you and want to give you a big hug. Thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck. God bless you.

841 words

Context: House Hansard - 228 - Oct/3/23

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/3/23 6:40:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this evening to pursue a question I initially asked on May 8, 2023. That question related to electoral reform, and specifically, I was picking up on the fact that, just in the previous weekend, at the Liberal Party policy convention, the Liberals had adopted a resolution very close to a motion that had been put forward by my Green colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. Now the NDP has put forward another motion that is very similar, from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, calling for a citizens' assembly. The Liberal Party gathered in Ottawa and voted for holding a citizens' assembly to investigate electoral reform. The Prime Minister's initial response to the media was that there was “no consensus”, in his language, to pursue a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. When the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour, responded to me on that day back in May, he reiterated this notion that there was no consensus for a citizens' assembly, so let us just frame tonight's debate around this central point. I do want to stop and thank the grassroots campaigners, who are non-partisan citizen activists of Fair Vote Canada, for pursuing this matter and demonstrating that the majority of Canadians want to see a citizens' assembly. To say there is no consensus around getting rid of first past the post, as the Prime Minister says, I think is debatable, but it is a move to a different voting system. To say there is no consensus and that therefore we will not pursue a method to find consensus is absurd. A citizens' assembly, a non-partisan citizens' assembly, on electoral reform is for the very purpose of finding consensus. Bringing Canadians together who are chosen randomly, citizens' assemblies are a really fascinating tool in democracies. Canada has used them on this topic but only at the provincial level. There is great support for moving to a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. By the way, eight times since 1921, this House or various law commissions have studied first past the post, and in every instance since 1921 no body, as in a group of people, a House of Commons committee and so on, has ever found that first past the post is an appropriate system for Canada. That is because ever since the early 1920s, we have not been a two-party system. We have had three, four and, now in this House, five parties. Therefore, in an electoral system with a first-past-the-post system, inevitably and invariably the vote is distorted between the popular vote and the seat count. Especially, as I said, since 1921, every authority that has studied the matter has said that first past the post does not work for Canada. However, to find the new system, to develop consensus, a citizens' assembly is an excellent tool. I found it bizarre to be told in question period that we did not have consensus on the tool to find consensus. I note parenthetically that it appears to me the Prime Minister will not think there is consensus on anything until everyone agrees with him, and that is not a tool for consensus. We absolutely must have fair voting so that Canadians have confidence that the way they cast their vote has an impact on the result.

574 words

Context: House Hansard - 228 - Oct/3/23

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/3/23 6:48:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary claimed that first past the post has served Canada well. I had the honour to serve on the all-party select committee that studied the matter of electoral reform, and we heard from many experts that first past the post has not served Canada well. These experts included a former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and a professor emeritus from the University of Toronto, Peter Russell. First past the post distorts results and leaves frustrated, unhappy voters. When the parliamentary secretary says that they are committed to strengthening democracy, I would urge her to reflect on how that contributes to public cynicism and hurts Canada's democracy. When the Liberals leapt from third place to win a majority in 2015, it was largely because they promised 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. I note they have resurrected the 2015 election promise to get rid of GST on rentals. It is time to bring back the promise to fix our voting system.

173 words