SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:52:43 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

24 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 5:52:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9, 2023, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 20, 2023, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, November 10, 2023; (b) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on Friday, November 10, 2023; and (c) on Friday, November 10, 2023, a minister of the Crown may transmit to the Speaker a message from Her Excellency the Governor General recommending Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, provided that (i) the Speaker shall inform the House of the receipt of such message and the tabling of the estimates thereon by causing them to be published in the Journals, and the said estimates shall be for all purposes deemed tabled before the House, (ii) the votes therein shall be referred to a relevant standing committee or committees.

208 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:54:17 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:54:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:06 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/7/23 5:57:52 p.m.
Watch

moved: That: (a) the House recognize that, (i) representative democracy is a fundamental part of Canadian society, (ii) in Canada’s current electoral system, the majority of voters cast ballots for a candidate who does not get elected, and many voters feel that election results do not accurately reflect their views, (iii) a Leger poll conducted in September 2020 showed that 80% of Canadians support the idea of striking a non-partisan, independent citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, (iv) many Canadians are concerned with the health of Canada’s democracy, including voter distrust and disengagement, low voter turnout, and the polarization of politics, (v) all politicians, and all parties, are widely perceived by the public to have a vested interest in the design of the electoral system, (vi) citizens' assemblies have considerable legitimacy and public trust because they are independent, non-partisan, representative bodies of citizens, (vii) citizens’ assemblies have been used successfully in Canada, Australia, Belgium, France, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to tackle difficult issues through nuanced public deliberation, (viii) a citizens' assembly on electoral reform would give citizens a leadership role in building consensus on a specific model for electoral reform for Canada; and (b) in the opinion of the House, the government should create a Canadian citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, which would, (i) consist of citizens selected by sortition, an impartial selection process to ensure the assembly’s independence and non-partisanship, (ii) reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, (iii) determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy. She said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to rise for the first hour of debate on a motion on a vitally important issue: Motion No. 86 calls on the government to implement a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. First, I want to thank all those who were tirelessly pushing to have electoral reform and to increase representation in the House of Commons far before I had the honour to serve as the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. There are so many community advocates and organizations, but I will name just a few: Fair Vote Canada, Apathy is Boring, The Council of Canadians, Equal Voice and Citizens for Public Justice. We know that the way in which Canadians elect their representatives matters, and the impacts are felt by all Canadians. We are living with the impacts of a climate crisis. More and more people are struggling to get by to have good, healthy food on the table, a place to call home and an income that pays the bills. Canadians no longer have time to wait for those who represent them to take real action. This is why I have brought forward Motion No. 86. Canada has been using the same electoral system since Confederation in 1867. I am sure everyone in the House will agree that much has changed since Canada was first formed. The first-past-the-post electoral system implemented by those often referred to as “Canada's founding fathers” was put into place many generations before women even had the right to vote or were even considered persons, which happened in 1929. This was before indigenous people were able to vote without losing status, which happened in 1960. Canada was a much different place, and the rights and voices of so many were not included. We have come very far, but also, not far enough. The first-past-the-post electoral system we are all familiar with is one where the winner takes all, meaning that the candidate who gets the most votes wins all the power. This was very evident in the last two elections, where our outdated voting system allowed one party to win 100% of the power with just 39% of the vote. We see the impacts first-hand of what happens when the majority of Canadians do not see their votes represented. Canadians are sharing with me that they are feeling increasingly disengaged, and this is seen in the consistently decreasing voter turnout. Another result of the first-past-the-post system can be seen when we look around us in this exact chamber. It is evident that those elected across Canada do not match our communities. As one example, currently, elected members in the House of Commons are 30% women, despite women accounting for just over 50% of the Canadian population. This is the highest representation of women elected to represent federally that we have ever seen in Canada, yet it is clearly nowhere near where it should be. It is important to note that, despite the steady and small increases in women's representation in the House of Commons, Canada ranks at an embarrassing 58th place on the world stage, and this number seems to just keep getting worse. The pace of the work happening to address this gap is not keeping up with the need. A 2018 report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, titled “Elect Her: A Roadmap for Improving the Representation of Women in Canadian Politics”, includes sound recommendations for the government regarding concerns that remain today. The report discusses the ways in which increased political representation results in improvements in economic, political and social outcomes for everyone. We know that having more women in politics means increased collaborations. I cannot even begin to count how many times I have heard from constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith as they express frustrations with the endless delay tactics and partisan games happening in this chamber. My constituents and Canadians across the country are asking for necessary solutions to be implemented, which means working together. Encouraging an environment of respect with diverse opinions on important topics is considered an essential component of an effective democracy. This means putting aside political games, working across party lines and doing what is right not for the benefit of the next election but for those we serve. To make matters worse, only 2.4% of members of Parliament identify as Black, while 3.3% identify as indigenous. It is clear that Parliament also lacks in representation of 2SLGBTQIA+ people, people living with disabilities, people living with low incomes, and I could go on. Those elected to the House of Commons do not match our communities, which means that important voices are being left out of decisions that more often than not have the biggest impact on those who were not part of the decision-making process in the first place. Finally, as a result of the first-past-the-post system, we all too often see Canadians being left with no choice but to rely on what is called strategic voting. I hear from Canadians that they are strategically voting for a candidate to ensure another does not get elected, not because they believe that candidate would be the best person to represent their values, but because they do not want to see another candidate getting in. People want to be inspired to vote for the candidate who best aligns with the vision they see for the future. They want to see their vote count. Implementing a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform offers Canadians the opportunity to ensure Canada's democracy is strong, not only by looking at how votes are counted but also by reviewing all factors that may impact our democracy, including the voting age, access to online voting and roadblocks to the full participation of Canadians. Today is the time to see all members of this House come together and move forward with a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Canadians no longer trust that politicians will do what is necessary, and rightly so. Canadians watched as the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on electoral reform, promising it would be the last election using the first-past-the-post system, but this promise was clearly broken. Since then, my colleague, the NDP MP for Elmwood—Transcona, was able to get support from members of all official parties in the last Parliament to agree to a study on electoral reform at the procedure and House affairs committee. Unfortunately, when the 2021 election was called by the Liberals, this much-needed study was not conducted. My colleague from the Green Party, the MP for Kitchener Centre, then carried the baton by bringing forward Motion No. 76, calling for a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. When I found out I would have the opportunity to bring forward private member's business for debate, I knew carrying on this important work was the right path to take. I have had other bills and motions tabled in this House, all of which are very important, but at such a troubling time for so many, much work needs to be done. As I touched on before, we are in a housing crisis. We are losing loved ones at a tragic rate from toxic substances. Forest fires, droughts and floods are impacting us all across the country and around the world as a result of the climate crisis. Innocent civilians, including over 4,000 children, have been killed by bombs, as we speak, in Gaza. All require our immediate attention. These are problems that require strong, honest, effective and representative leadership. In order to have that leadership, we need to strengthen our democracy. I feel the frustrations being shared by so many Canadians. We cannot keep doing what we have always done. We cannot keep cycling through the same political parties so they have all the power, attracting the same types of candidates, making it easy for this cycle to continue with a first-past-the-post system and expecting a different result. The decisions made today will decide all our futures and, based on what I am seeing today, whether we will have a future at all. I bring forward Motion No. 86 for debate because we need to see a Parliament that encourages collaborations, real solutions and honest debate. We need the electoral systems to work for all Canadians, not just the few elite. Although many in this House would like to deny it, we know that lining the pockets of rich CEOs is not helping everyday people across Canada. It is time that the decisions made are reflective of the views and experiences of Canadians, not of lobbyists, who only have profits in the front of their minds. It is for all these reasons and more that I without hesitation decided to bring forward a tangible solution that can move us forward in a positive direction to begin addressing the existential threats we are faced with. There is reason for Canadians to be optimistic. Through strengthening our democracy, Canadians can see their voices heard and can see solutions that put the planet and the people who rely on it at the forefront. With all members coming together and doing what is right for Canadians, we can see a happier, healthier and more sustainable future. I would like to share the words of Shoni Field, a member of the former British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Ms. Field said to me, “A citizens' assembly is a critical health check for our democracy that can re-engage a distrustful electorate, renew confidence that our democracy can be both stable and responsive to a changing world and give voters hope that there can be a way for them to meaningfully engage in the political process to make our communities and country a better place.” Those are strong words. A national citizens' assembly would give Canadians the tools, through an independent, non-partisan assembly, that would provide its findings and solutions to government as the best path forward. Citizens' assemblies have been used successfully in countries around the world. There are various forms of proportional representation, but one thing they all have in common is that voter support aligns with those who are elected. Proportional representation is used effectively in countries such as Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Scotland and Germany to name just a few. What we do know is that when we compare countries that use a first-past-the-post system, like Canada and the United States, to those using a system of proportional representation, in those countries that use proportional representation, we see, on average, lower income inequality, more success moving forward with necessary and real climate action and higher scores on the UN's Human Development Index that measures health, knowledge and standard of living. I am pleased to share that Canadian citizens from all political parties are expressing support for a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. As a matter of fact, according to a poll taken in 2022 by EKOS Research Associates and Fair Vote Canada, 76% of Canadians from all political backgrounds support this move forward. When the poll was conducted, the majority of respondents from all political parties, including Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Green, were in favour of a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. We are here today because, unfortunately, we saw the Liberals run on a promise of electoral reform and then never follow through with that promise. This is an opportunity for all members of Parliament to come together to listen to Canadians across the country who are saying that now is the time for change. It is the time for us to be uniting to implement real solutions for people, because we are in very troubling times. The motion before us is more applicable now than it has ever been, because it is clear that continuing to cycle through the exact same processes that we have used in the past is not working. Therefore, it is essential that we all take the time to listen to our constituents, implement a national citizens' assembly and look at having representation that matches our communities. With that, I hope that members of Parliament in all parties will come together to vote in favour of this motion. I look forward to answering any questions that members have.

2389 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 6:11:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to certain remarks that the member made, both in her motion text and in her speech, she said that the low voter turnout is due to the current first-past-the-post system. In my riding of Nepean and in many other ridings in Ottawa, the turnout has been consistently about 70% in the last three elections. The member also said that this is not a proper system for our country, but our country has been one of the best countries in the world in every single measurable index. A citizens' assembly would be an attempt at an entry through the back door into a proportional system. We have seen many countries with proportional systems, like Israel. Because of the proportional system, Israel cannot come to an agreement with Palestine. The biggest and oldest democracies in the world, like Canada, are doing well.

147 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Nov/7/23 6:12:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not quite hear the question there, but I would be more than happy to comment on what I just heard. First and foremost, something that I did not mention in my speech is that there was a Liberal convention recently. As members know, political parties have conventions. The Liberal members at the Liberal convention actually voted in favour of a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Therefore, I would ask the member to lean on his membership and perhaps move forward with what it is that his members are asking him to do. The other thing is that, absolutely, we have a strong democracy here in Canada, but there is so much room for improvement. If we look around Parliament in the chamber today, we will see just that. We know also that out of the world's 35 most robust democracies, 25 use a proportional representation, and another six have adopted an intermediate solution. There are proportional representation systems used throughout—

167 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 6:13:29 p.m.
Watch

I have to go to other questions. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

19 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Nov/7/23 6:13:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, paragraph (b) of the motion's text states that “a Canadian citizens' assembly on electoral reform” would inter alia: ...reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.... The question I have relates to how we achieve this in the context of the fact that some of these groups are demographically rather small. There are, for example, only 70,000 Inuit people in Canada. To have one Inuit person on there, it would have to have 500 members, unless it overrepresents them. This would be true for other groups as well. How does the hon. member suggest dealing with this?

127 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Nov/7/23 6:14:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, what comes to mind is, if we look around the chamber, it does not match what we see in our communities. We know that we have over 50% women, for example, in our communities, but only 30% women in the House of Commons, which is the highest it has ever been. However, when we look on the world stage, the increase in gender parity in our House of Commons does not match the pace it is increasing across the world. We are in 58th place currently, which is very low. My hope is that we will see House of Commons representatives match our communities, which is currently what we do not have in place.

119 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/7/23 6:15:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith on her speech and her remarks. I am struck by the argument that women make up about 50% of Canada's population but they are under-represented here, in the House of Commons. Although we are talking about the electoral system, I am sure that a lot of other factors play a part in the fact that women may be less interested in politics. It may be the way that we practice politics. Perhaps we should dig a little deeper, specifically to try to attract people who better represent the demographic landscape of Canada and Quebec. I would like to know what my colleague thinks on this matter, because I am not sure that reforming the voting system alone is enough to ensure that more women or under-represented groups will end up here, in the House of Commons.

149 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Nov/7/23 6:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, there is a lot of work that needs to happen in order to increase the number of women represented in the House of Commons. Electoral reform is one piece of that bigger parcel of solutions that need to be implemented. I am working on other components as well but, ultimately, if we look at strengthening our democracy, we will see increased gender parity and increased representation from all those who are in our communities.

77 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 6:16:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on Motion No. 86, which would create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. I am one of the 20 members who has seconded this motion. I would note that members of all parties, with the exception of the Bloc, have seconded it. I want to commend the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for putting this forward, as well as the member for Kitchener Centre, who put forward a motion that was nearly identical to this previously. In fact, more than three-quarters of Canadians support having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Importantly, 69% of the voters of every single party in Canada, any party, support this type of measure. What is a citizens' assembly? It is a non-partisan, independent and trusted group of citizens who are selected at random. It is a group of Canadians who are broadly representative of the diversity of the population, who are given the opportunity to learn from experts on a particular topic, thoughtfully consider the options, and issue and make recommendations based on their work. This motion would task creating a citizens' assembly to review our electoral system; to investigate how it could be improved, if it could be improved at all; and then to make recommendations based on their work. On an issue that is as fundamental as how we constitute who represents us and who gets to govern our country, it is essential that this process be free from politics and any partisan influence and interests. Political parties will be biased in any recommendation they offer. Parties such as the Conservatives, which have shown that they cannot work with other parties, will want to keep the first-past-the-post system so that they can shoot for a majority and impose their minority will on Canadians. Big tent parties such as the Liberal Party would seek some sort of a ranked ballot, so parties that appeal broadly get rewarded. Single-issue parties such as the Greens will want proportional representation, so a smaller vote share in many ridings across the country will lead to their having greater representation. We know that the NDP is in favour of mixed member proportionality, where it would be able to leverage some single-issue, single-stakeholder matters, as well as taking advantage of some regional strengths. Of course, the Bloc would likely prefer to keep the system as it is right now, as they have much greater representation than their vote share at this point. Quite frankly, that is why none of us here are trustworthy on this matter. We would all be blindly self-interested in choosing a system that would work best for our given party. Even after a system is chosen by a citizens' assembly, it is absolutely critical that the public have the opportunity to vote for or against it in a referendum. Just as democracies have the right to vote for who represents us, we especially should have the right to vote for or against any system that would completely change this process. Otherwise, the system will not be seen to have any legitimacy. Therefore, I suggest that this be included in this motion; perhaps it can be included if this motion gets debated at committee. Like the member who proposed this motion, I am a British Columbian who has experienced what a citizens' assembly can look like. The province launched a citizens' assembly in response to a provincial NDP victory in the 1996 election, where the NDP formed government but only had a minority of the vote, at under 40%. In the subsequent election, the B.C. Liberals ended up winning a huge majority based on the first-past-the-post system; however, to their credit, they proceeded with moving forward on a citizens' assembly for electoral reform in 2004, despite having gotten that huge majority. I think there is much that we could learn from this process. Unfortunately, there was a citizens' assembly on electoral reform that chose a system, but when they put it to a referendum, they chose a threshold of 60% to reach, before any change could be made. In this referendum, 57% ended up voting in favour of choosing single transferable votes as the new system for British Columbia, which is very significant, given that this was not a system that many Canadians or many British Columbians knew at that time. We see similar examples at the federal level in Canada, where majority governments are delivered with about 40% of the vote. This is especially the case when we see poor voter turnout. This leaves much of the country feeling disenfranchised. It has contributed to dramatic policy shifts that we see in our country, which cause vast uncertainty and impede progress on some critical things, like on climate change. It also brings in some political risk that actually impedes business investment. I think we can do better than this with our democracy. In fact, we must do everything we can to revitalize democracy in this country. As we see, it is under threat from foreign interference, from disinformation both foreign and domestic and also from the tactics of the Conservatives who are seen to make democracy look so ugly that people lose confidence, stay home and do not vote. I want to recognize the work of so many advocates on this matter. In fact, I hear from my constituents frequently about electoral reform. As my constituent Eric tells me, the current voting system is “pushing people away from participating in elections. It's very unhealthy for our democracy and, I dare say, even dangerous in this day and age of disinformation.” Theodora says, “We need this advanced so that all people and their ideas are well included and given respect for their ideas and new beneficial approaches.” That is why many Canadians, including so many I have met in my riding, were swayed by the promise made in 2015, that it would be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system. In fact, I participated in a consultation that was coordinated by the current Minister of Health, who, at the time, was the parliamentary secretary for democratic reform. I remember the consultation being robust and it definitely touched on the different positives and negatives of different political systems. I thought it was very well done. While the government of the day made some very important advances in improving our democracy, particularly with delivering an independent Senate, I was disappointed that the decision to pursue electoral reform was not followed through because there was not consensus at the time. I do believe that the system was, in fact, doomed to failure from the beginning. Frankly, we should be grateful that the decision to move ahead with a system like ranked ballot was not chosen by the government and instituted before the next election. It would not have allowed for an unbiased decision and it would not have given the choice for people to choose one political system or another for elections. I believe that campaign promise was actually the wrong one. It is not just me. The Prime Minister, in a question and answer period in my riding earlier this year, said that not acting on electoral reform was one of the things that he regretted most. This represents an opportunity to change that. My hope is that this motion will pass and that a citizens' assembly would be launched as soon as possible. Frankly, it would not likely be able to be launched before the spring of next year. I would like to see a citizens' assembly be formed and for it to have a mandate to undertake a study and deliver it by early 2025. Assuming that there is an election in September 2025, it would be possible to align the election vote with the referendum vote on any change that is recommended by such a body, to change the electoral system. That way, with regard to the 2025 electoral votes, parties would have the opportunity to decide whether they commit to change the electoral system for the following election. I believe that setting it up in this timeline would allow enough time for Canadians to learn about the changes that are proposed. The government should also provide resources for third parties to educate Canadians about the chosen system so that they are properly informed. Importantly, I believe that a referendum on any change that is proposed should be set at a threshold of 50% plus one vote.

1441 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Nov/7/23 6:26:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Motion No. 86. Knowing the sincerity and good will with which this motion was put forward by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, it pains me to have to vote against it. I will devote my remarks to explaining the reasons why I will be doing so. Motion No. 86 proposes to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. A citizens' assembly is an ad hoc assembly of people selected by lottery from the general population, much as a jury is selected. Its ephemeral nature, in that it is called together to deal with a single matter and then disperses, is also similar to a jury. The purpose of this citizens' assembly, as the text of the motion explains, is to, “Determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.” This proposal is half right, but it is also half wrong. Specifically, I agree that a citizens' assembly can play a useful role in designing what Motion No. 86 refers to as “specific measures”. More precisely, a citizens' assembly can engage in the detailed design of one or more electoral systems, which could then be offered as alternatives to Canada's status quo first-past-the-post electoral system. However, I disagree with the motion in that I believe it is not appropriate to ask a citizens' assembly to “determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada”. Canadians, themselves, should make this determination, and they should do so via referendum. I would have been much happier if the motion had explicitly stated that the role of a citizens' assembly is to propose one or more alternative electoral systems for Canadians to vote on in a referendum. Citizens' assemblies have been used twice in Canada for the purpose of designing electoral systems: once in British Columbia in 2004 and once in Ontario in 2006. On both occasions, the resulting proposal was submitted to the voters for final approval in referendums. However, Motion No. 86 does not contain any reference to a referendum, and given how the NDP strenuously objected to any referendum when electoral reform was being seriously considered back in 2016, I worry that, if I were to vote in favour of Motion No. 86, I would subsequently be told that I had approved a process under which the citizens' assembly would determine the outcome, as opposed to merely proposing potential outcomes. As well, it would be unhelpful to have a citizens' assembly that provides merely a general outline of the electoral systems it is proposing, as appears to be advocated here, with the expectation that parliamentarians would then fill in the details later on. We all know the old saying that the devil is in the details, and by necessity, any proportional or preferential electoral system contains enough details to hide a considerable amount of devilry, which could have the effect of producing an electoral outcome very different from what the voters had thought they were buying into. There is no need to repeat, in this anticipated future process, a version of what happened in the 2015 election, when voters naively supported an electoral promise by the current Prime Minister, the then leader of an opposition party, that the election then under way would be the last to be held under the first-past-the-post system, only to learn, after it was too late to retract their votes, that the only alternative to the status quo that the new Prime Minister was willing to consider was a preferential ballot, a system which would, very predictably, have greatly enhanced the electoral success of a centrist party such as the Liberals. This kind of bait and switch could be carried out, although admittedly at a less Wagnerian level, with the details of an assembly-approved proposal being proffered without spelling out the details, an option such as multi-member proportionality. To get the idea of just how much variation there can be within the umbrella term “multi-member proportionality”, I invite colleagues to peruse pages 84 to 94 of the report of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which provide details of some of the potential variations under that rubric that could produce meaningfully different implications. To be clear, it would not be the members of the citizens' assembly who would engage in this sleight of hand. It would be us, the politicians, sorting out the details after the assembly has done its work. The only solution is to leave no drafting work to be done by the politicians after the approval process. My view is that a citizens' assembly could make a useful contribution if it is utilized at an early stage of a consultation process that culminates in a referendum. The citizens' assembly should take place at a stage that is roughly analogous to the committee stage in the normal parliamentary legislative process. It is at this point in the process that the assembly could engage in the detailed work of designing alternatives to the status quo or in reviewing and approving designs prepared by subject matter experts. As an ad hoc body whose membership is composed of non-politicians who have no partisan interest to defend, the citizens' assembly is likely to put forward models for potential approval that will transparently not contain hidden elements that benefit this political party or that political party. However, it is the referendum itself that is the essential backstop preventing any attempts at manipulation from ultimately succeeding. It is not enough to rely upon the citizens' assembly alone, and it would be perverse to regard the work of the assembly as being so morally prescriptive as to require Parliament to simply enact that which has been determined by the assembly. Only a referendum can give this kind of moral weight. There are several ways of conducting such a referendum. Based on the history of the past 20 years, it would seem that a referendum structured as a preferential ballot, in which voters rank the various options designed by a citizens' assembly, is the likeliest to produce a mandate for changing away from first past the post. However, such a result will not be legitimate unless first past the post is one of the options on that referendum ballot. This was the process used in Prince Edward Island for a referendum that took place in 2019. P.E.I.'s 2019 referendum was one of seven referenda on the subject of electoral reform that have taken place in this country over the past two decades, with a mixed record of success. It might be helpful for me to devote my remaining time to running through the results of all of these referenda. In British Columbia, voters have cast ballots in three referenda on whether or not to adopt a new electoral system. The first of B.C.'s three referenda took place in 2005, and 57.6% of participating voters supported the adoption of an electoral system known as single transferrable vote, or STV. The STV model had been designed a year prior to the referendum by an ad hoc group known as the B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. I suspect that the 2004 B.C. Citizens' Assembly is probably the inspiration for the one proposed in the motion we are debating today. However, the new electoral system was not adopted into law in consequence of a provision in the province's electoral law requiring any referendum measure to win a supermajority of at least 60% in order to be adopted. Therefore, to deal with this troubling result, a second referendum was held in 2009 on the very same STV electoral system versus the status quo, but this time only 39% of voters supported the single transferrable vote system. There was a very similar voter turnout in both referenda, 2.8 million votes in the first versus 2.9 million cast in the second, so the only possible explanation for this change is that over the course of four years, voters had cooled to this option. In 2018, a third referendum was held. This time, there were two questions on the ballot. First, voters were given a choice between changing to a new electoral system or sticking with the status quo, and second, voters were asked to rank three alternative electoral systems. This two-question structure was designed to ensure that in the event of a vote in favour of change, even voters who supported the status quo would have an equal voice in choosing the new system. It was anticipated by many observers, me included, that a two-question ballot would result in a higher percentage of voters feeling comfortable with changing to the new system and therefore voting yes to change. However, the opposite happened and less than 39% of voters voted for change. In P.E.I., voters have cast ballots in three referenda on adopting a new electoral system. The first of these referenda, held in 2005, showed change being firmly rejected. Only 36% of participating voters endorsed the alternative proposal. Provincial leaders concluded from this experience that in any simple head-to-head popularity contest between the status quo and any particular alternative, the new alternative is at a disadvantage because advocates of different new alternatives, who might not much care for the status quo, will nonetheless vote for it in the hope that in a later contest, they will be able to get their own preferred system set in place. A second referendum was held in 2016, with voters being asked to rank four options, including the status quo and three alternatives. The result would indicate this worked out very well for the designers of the referendum, as 52.4% of participating voters endorsed a new system. However, this did not lead to P.E.I.'s system changing, because only 37% of voters actually cast ballots, which cast legitimacy on this very small majority. P.E.I. normally has a very high voter turnout, around 80%, so the premier decided it would make sense to have another referendum. This was done and it produced a much lower result, with just under half of voters endorsing a new system. There was also a referendum in Ontario in 2007. This followed a convention of the sort discussed in this motion, but it nonetheless failed, which means there is no guarantee of success just because we tried to use a citizens' assembly.

1765 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/7/23 6:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud Motion No. 86, moved by our NDP colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It is an interesting motion. This is not the first time that proposals to reform the electoral system have appeared on the political landscape, whether at the provincial government level, in Quebec, or here in the House of Commons. We rarely see these reform projects accomplish anything, and the reason is simple. It requires a little something that is often lacking in politics: courage. It is clear that our electoral system inevitably favours the party that wins the election. Consequently, the party that wins an election thanks to this system is unlikely to announce that it will immediately change the system for the better, switching to a formula that may put it at a disadvantage in future elections. We saw a bit of that in 2015 when the Liberals came to power, saying that the country had just seen the last election with this first-past-the-post voting system and that they were going to reform it. The government held consultations and received a report afterwards. It did not take long for the government to install a brand new shelf to toss the report on and forget about it. I find it very interesting that this is being proposed today, and that we have the opportunity to debate it. I hope that members will have a little more courage this time and that we will heed this call. Many groups and communities in Quebec and Canada have been calling for this for one very simple reason: Many citizens, many voters, do not feel properly represented. That is true. As the mover of the motion pointed out earlier, only 30% of those elected to the House of Commons are women, even though we know that the proportion of women in Canada's population is much higher than that, probably around 50%. There are reasons for this. Obviously, this is not just about the voting system. As long as we are opening up the debate and studying the issue, we must also ask ourselves some other questions. We have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves how we are engaging in politics. Is our system still suited to life in 2023, 2024, 2030 and beyond? Perhaps we could look at how debates are conducted. Perhaps we could examine whether time is being used effectively in the House of Commons. I fully support having a citizens' assembly to review the electoral system, but at the same time, let us have a citizens' assembly to hold consultations on how we should engage in politics. I will give the example of young people. It is nothing new that young people are not interested in politics, but they are getting less and less interested and that is no small thing. We must be doing something wrong. There must be something we could do better to ensure that young people are better represented in politics at every level. A citizen's assembly that would look at the issue and focus on listening and coming up with solutions would certainly be beneficial. This would be a way of making politics more interesting and attractive to groups of people who are currently not interested because they do not relate to or are concerned about the debates being held and because these debates are not properly communicated to them. This breeds cynicism and we all end up paying the price, because in a democracy there is nothing worse than cynicism. That is why the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of Motion No. 86. It may not be perfect, but it will start a debate, a discussion, that I think will be highly beneficial. Of course, as soon as the consultation ends and the report is presented in the House, we must not rush to put this report on the shelf right beside the one produced in 2016. We would be making the same mistake twice. It would be a terrible shame to repeat this mistake time and time again simply because we lack the courage to undertake a major reform of our existing system. A while ago I was talking about young people's disengagement from politics. That bothers me, and I am sure it bothers every one of my colleagues in the House. In fact, when we meet with young people in our ridings, we see something different; we see that they are interested in politics. They are interested in all kinds of issues, like social inequality, the environment, the homelessness crisis, the current housing crisis and problems related to our health care systems. Young people are wondering what kind of society we are leaving for them. They say they are going to be stuck with a great big mess when it is time for them to take the reins, and they are absolutely right. They take a stand and often make their voices heard at demonstrations. When I meet these young people and hear their comments and concerns, I tell them straightaway that they are being political. They are taking a political stance. They tell me that no matter how much they complain and want to change things, the current political system means that things will not change. They really feel that the system will not do anything to help them fulfill their dreams or implement the changes they would like to see in society for their own future. This idea of holding consultations to ask people how they see things and how we can get them interested in getting more involved so that there will one day be better representation of all the different communities here in the House of Commons, as well as in other legislatures across Canada and Quebec, is a golden opportunity. I am very hopeful that some of the things in the motion will come to fruition once we get to the committee stage. Earlier, during the speech of my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a riding whose name I love to say, I believe I heard him say that the Liberals are going to support Motion No. 86. I am happy about that because it shows that we are going to end up in committee discussing, debating and improving it. There are certainly a number of things that will need to be clarified. I am very happy to see that, again, we are acknowledging that the participation of the first nations will be necessary during this consultation. However, I think we will need to take into account the characteristics of Quebec. Not every voting system will ensure that Quebec's specificity is protected and will allow Quebec to be well represented in a model like the ones that might be proposed. These are things we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss in committee. I am confident that common sense will prevail and that, when all is said and done, we will end up with a process that benefits democracy. Let us hope so. Maybe I am a bit of an idealist or over-optimistic. I get called out on that sometimes. I may have a natural inclination to see the world through rose-coloured glasses, but I think this process could really generate more public interest in what we do here. I sincerely hope so. I hope that this motion will be adopted. I am confident that it will. Once the recommendations have been presented following the consultations, I hope that the government in power at the time will have the courage to implement them. I hope that this common-sense initiative will see the light of day thanks to the courage of the politicians who are in the House of Commons on that day.

1314 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/7/23 6:45:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying a big thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Electoral reform is an important issue in Canada and it is important we keep it an issue on Parliament Hill. By choosing to move ahead with this motion, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has caused us to be talking about it on the floor of the House and brought it to the attention of all members. That is something the Prime Minister was hoping would not happen after he crassly broke his promise after throwing out a great set of recommendations by a special committee on parliamentary reform that was set up, notwithstanding the fact it was a majority government at that time, on a proportional basis. Opposition parties at that time came together in a way the government frankly did not expect and did find a path forward for electoral reform, one the government quickly threw in the bin. I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have made elsewhere on the record and the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith eloquently made today about the nature of representation in Parliament, which is surely a very important argument. She presented some facts and figures about the ways that Canadians are not adequately represented, whether it is women or different racial minorities in Canada. People living with disabilities are not adequately represented in the chamber. She also talked about some of the disillusionment with politics that is occurring and a sense by people that their vote does not really count, or that they have to vote against what they do not want instead of voting for what they do want. Those are all themes that, as people who knock on doors and talk to people about political engagement, we are very aware of. It is not a limited phenomenon in Canada. It is one of the reasons voter engagement is going down in Canada instead of up, as people feel more alienated from the system. Surely, the Prime Minister breaking what was a very clear promise in the 2015 election was an important moment for many Canadians, and unfortunately, not a positive one. It was not one that drew people to politics. It was not one that caused people to feel that when politicians make promises and rally behind them there is the promised outcome on the other end of that. That is why it is important now to put the emphasis on a citizens' assembly, because there is a fair amount of broken trust, a trust the Prime Minister himself is responsible for having broken. It was not just once, though. It was not just after the 2015 election and the subsequent report by the special committee and the crass kind of dismissal of that report. He did it again recently after Liberal Party members passed a resolution at their own convention calling for an examination of the electoral process and a move away from the first-past-the-post system. The Prime Minister came out the very next day to talk about this. The convention was not even over and he was already talking about how that would not proceed and there was no consensus. It is very easy to stand up and say there is no consensus when one is the person who is getting in the way of there being a consensus. Opposition parties, in the 42nd Parliament, showed that even between parties as disparate and which disagree even on the matter of electoral reform to the extent Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats and Greens sometimes do disagree on these matters, and if we each were able to pick our ideal system it probably would not be the same system, we nevertheless worked together to form a majority consensus on that committee. Opposition parties in Canada showed very clearly where there is a will there is a way. The person who has been standing in the way of that consensus, and the only reason there is not a consensus on how to move forward, is the Prime Minister. He has refused to accept the consensus other parties have shown that they are able to come to in order to move forward on this most important issue. Why is it that the Prime Minister says there should be no consensus? Why is it he does not agree? It is because he says that proportional representation is divisive. Let us take a look at what the first-past-the-post system has created in this place. Is it a place of unity? Is it a place of respectful discourse? No, it is a place of incredible division, where we are routinely saturated with misrepresentations like, for instance, that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition. There is a supply and confidence agreement. It is published online. Anyone who wants the details of that can go online; it is a fully transparent document. We have shown time and time again, whether it is on a public inquiry on foreign interference or just recently on the Conservatives' own carbon tax motion, we are prepared to disagree with the government and not support it on important issues of the day. Why? It is because we are not the government. We are not a part of that government. We are willing to work with the government on issues like dental care and increasing funding for housing, and a number of other things that are in the supply and confidence agreement, which Canadians right now who are watching can google and read online. That much is true. Do the Conservatives say in French that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition? Not any more, because it does not suit their political interests. Instead, they say that there is a Liberal-Bloc coalition. When members are speaking English, they often call it an NDP-Liberal coalition. When they are speaking French, they call it a Bloc-Liberal coalition. Which is it? It has to be one or the other if we are talking about a government made up of two political parties. However, the truth is that it is neither. The Bloc is not in a coalition with the government, and we are not in a coalition with the government. We just voted with the Conservatives again on an important issue of the day: expanding the pause on the carbon tax to avoid regional division within the carbon pricing system. Is that a Conservative-NDP coalition? It is not, but I suppose we could call it that. Thus, there is a Liberal-NDP coalition and there is a Conservative-NDP coalition. There is a Bloc-Liberal coalition, and I have seen the Bloc vote with the Conservatives; surely that is a coalition, so I guess there is a Conservative-Bloc coalition. I watched, on an important matter of democracy that had to do with abuses of confidences and prorogation in the House, the Liberals and Conservatives stand up together to maintain the power of the Prime Minister to shut this place down. That was a Liberal-Conservative coalition, I guess. We just call it a coalition any time parties happen to agree on any issue. When I voted in Parliament with the Conservatives on Bill C-2 to disallow the wage subsidy to companies that were paying dividends, perhaps that was a coalition. When I worked with the member for Sarnia—Lambton on important pension reform, and the Bloc was part of that, I suppose that was a coalition. Who is running the country? It depends I guess what vote one decides to use to evaluate who is running the country. My point in all of this is that the first-past-the-post system sure as heck has not created a more unified body politic. It has not stopped division; in fact, it has encouraged it, because of what motivates the dishonest portrayal of the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and Liberals, or sometimes the Bloc and the Liberals, as I said, if one is speaking in French. It depends on the day. The Conservative leader, of course, is not who he says he is. He is one guy in French and another guy in English. Never mind; there are other examples but I will not go on, because I want to bring it back to the motion. The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are misrepresenting the truth on any day of the week, because they are chasing 40% of the vote. It is because we have an electoral system in this country where one can fight tooth and nail, and not to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Canadians, but just to get 40% or even 39% of the vote of Canadians. These are Canadians who, despite being disgusted with the state of political discourse, still show up to vote. However, if one can get 39% of those votes, and if one can use dishonesty and other misrepresentation to drive well-meaning Canadians away from polling stations, then one can get 100% of the power with just 39% of the votes. The culprit in all of this is the Prime Minister, who refuses to accept that our voting system encourages division. It is simply untrue to say that a proportional system would sow more division and discontent than we see in our current system. We could not pack more into an electoral system in terms of division and nasty politics than we are seeing in Canadian politics today. Yes, the Conservative leader is responsible for his fair share of that, but the motion before us is one of the things that we could do structurally in order to encourage better behaviour and more collaboration between parties despite the fact that they disagree. I am proud of the fact that New Democrats have been modelling collaboration with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, depending on the issue. We want a system that encourages that, rather than one that encourages the opposite. I think we have a lot of evidence to say that preserving the current voting system is not standing up against divisive, nasty politics. In Canada today, it is precisely the opposite, which is why we should support the motion from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

1721 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 6:55:08 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Nov/7/23 6:55:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the last eight years, the Prime Minister told Canadians that if they just paid the costly carbon tax, the NDP-Liberal government would meet their environmental targets. Today, the environment commissioner revealed that, despite the punishing carbon tax, the Liberals will fail to achieve their own emission targets. After eight years under the Prime Minister, it is all pain and no gain. If the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay their costly carbon tax, Canadians should know how many emissions it will reduce. My question is simple: How many emissions have been directly reduced from the carbon tax? I just want the number.

106 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 6:56:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, although I reject the premise. Climate change is real, and it is having really devastating impacts in Canada. Again this year, communities across our country were severely impacted by catastrophic storms, wildfires and floods. In fact, 2023 has indeed been the hottest year on record. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Regardless of how loudly the Conservatives would like to yell at me, climate change is indeed—

81 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248