44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 5, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/5/24 11:03:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time this session to represent the people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and to speak to the matter about which many of my constituents are passionate, and that is Motion No. 86 on a citizens' assembly on electoral reform, sponsored by the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and jointly seconded by me and 20 other members of Parliament.
The motion calls for the creation of a citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which, in turn, would determine whether electoral reform is recommended in the Canadian context and make suggestions as to how the electoral system could be improved.
We must address voter apathy and lack of trust in our electoral system. When young people say that they do not vote because their vote is not going to make a difference in what the government looks like after the election, we need change. When people in certain regions in the country feel that they are not represented because most of their elected representatives are from a party that has drastically different views from theirs, we need change. When certain groups of Canadians do not feel welcomed or able to participate in our parliamentary system, which is oppositional and largely the legacy of male white settlers and colonialists, we need change. When qualified individuals who want to help make our country a better place opt out due to the polarization and abuse fostered by our current system, we need change. When the only way to inflict policy is to demonize and overthrow the existing government rather than to collaborate and work together to come up with the best solutions to help Canadians, we need change.
We know we need change, and over 75% of Canadians agree and support electoral reform.
How do we get it and why a citizens' assembly? We know that a citizens' assembly is made up of representatives of non-elected Canadians, a wide range of Canadians from across the country, who can be chosen by subgroups to represent every group across our country. It is selected like a jury, with steps taken to ensure representation of the population. It can look at a broad range of reforms and options for reform, and the findings can either be referred to government or we can go to a referendum. There are different options, depending on how we proceed.
We have already seen that trying to find consensus on election reform through the usual order of business in government procedures has failed. In 2015, it was the will of this government to implement electoral reform, but the process found consensus only on retaining the status quo. While the intention was to create a more representative and responsive democratic process, achieving consensus on a specific alternative proved elusive. However, Canadians still want electoral reform.
It may not be the most urgent issue facing us today, but it is an extremely important one to the future of our democracy and our country. There are always going to be more urgent issues. After trying to find a way to change our electoral system, the government was confronted with many challenges, including a change in the government to the south of the border, which posed many challenges to our government. We then went into the COVID pandemic, and that took up a lot of urgent attention. Then there have been wars like in Ukraine and now the Middle East. There is the affordability crisis in the post-COVID economy. There are always more urgent issues for the government of the day to deal with, so trying to address this important issue through the normal course of business is very difficult, and we have to find another way to do it.
This is one of the reasons why a citizens' assembly is the way to proceed. It would allow for the issue to be re-examined in a way that goes beyond electoral cycles and parties. It could lead to better outcomes based on evidence. The participants would develop an in-depth understanding of the issue by listening to experts who share their knowledge with the assembly. They would aim to reach a consensus and make recommendations, either to Parliament, where negotiations and compromise could continue to reach a multiparty agreement, or through a referendum. It would provide legitimacy in making hard decisions and build trust in government and democratic institutions.
A citizens' assembly allows for ordinary Canadians to participate directly in government by discussion, which is one of the hallmarks of a parliamentary system, one that has been on the decline over the past decades, a decline that has coincided with the rise in conspiracy theories.
To quote Rob Goodman in his recent book Not Here:
...the rise of the conspiracy theory to the dominant style on the Canadian right, from [the Leader of the Opposition] (“They've been following you to the pharmacy, to your family visits, even to your beer runs”) to [another member] (the World Economic Forum is “actually talking about putting microchips in our bodies and in our heads") to Maxime Bernier ("A FUTURE WORLD GOVERNMENT . . . WILL DESTROY CANADA”). It is not a novel point to observe that these sorts of messages are delivered, without fear of contradiction, to siloed and bunkered audiences, that they grow in the dark like mold, that they couldn't bear even a minute of scrutiny. Yet they are a baroque and unreal projection of the very real fact that meaningful politics is conducted far out of ordinary earshot.
A citizens' assembly would allow discussions to be conducted in the earshot of Canadians. What better way to combat this trend than to use a citizens' assembly where ordinary citizens are engaged in discussion to tackle some of the divisive and politically difficult issues of the day, such as electoral reform?
Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada, in Ontario and British Columbia, and around the world in many countries, such as Ireland, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain to name a few, on a number of different topics. Even though the citizens' assemblies that were in Canada, in Ontario or B.C., did not result in changes, they were very robust and well-received assemblies that brought forth some good suggestions. We can change the way these work so that we can actually act on the suggestions that come forward.
With the increasing polarization and extremism in Canada, we need less confrontation and more co-operation. We need to find a way to ensure better representation of all Canadians. As Canada evolves, our electoral system must accommodate the changes to ensure a robust democracy.
Our parliamentary system, while having evolved somewhat over the years, was developed in a very different time. Since then, women and indigenous people, to name two groups, have been given the vote. However, Canada's institutions of government have not changed dramatically to accommodate these groups or facilitate their full participation. We adopted our own flag under former prime minister Lester B. Pearson. We repatriated our Constitution and adopted a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, recognizing the changing nature of our country.
Our electoral system should also change so that our government better reflects the changes in our society. While our parliamentary monarchy has served us well, we should consider whether a parliamentary public system might be better suited to the Canada of today, a natural evolution from the repatriation of the Constitution to the development of our own written charter.
Would proportional representation, such as Iceland has, or a mixed proportional system, such as Germany or New Zealand have, better serve the interest of all Canadians? These questions need to be addressed.
Motion No 86 is not merely a proposal; it is a declaration of our commitment to a democracy that is inclusive, representative and resilient. By supporting the establishment of a citizens' assembly, we are taking a bold step toward a more just and equitable Canada, one where the votes of the many guide the decisions that shape our collective destiny.
In our diverse and vibrant democracy, it is imperative that the voices of all citizens are not only heard but are actively incorporated into decision making. The citizens' assembly envisioned by Motion No. 86 would serve as a powerful mechanism for fostering inclusivity, ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of background or affiliation, would have a genuine opportunity to contribute to shaping the future of our nation.
To quote Ernest Naville, a Swiss philosopher and theologian, “The right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all.”
1455 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 11:21:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 86. We have been talking about electoral reform for a long time. Many political parties have pledged to reform the electoral system in all sorts of ways, or said, before forming government, that they were going to undertake public consultations leading up to this reform. Unfortunately, for reasons we need not go into here, this never happened. Several parties abandoned this electoral promise, among many others, after getting elected.
The motion proposes an original approach that may lead us down a different path from the one we have taken in the past, which has led us nowhere since we are still having the same debate. It is about creating citizens' assemblies that would prompt reflection and bring forth a proposal for electoral reform. It is a very democratic way of bringing citizens together to propose solutions.
There are elements of the motion that I would like to talk about. First, it says that election results often do not reflect the will of the voters. All anyone has to do is look at the election results we often get in Canada, the provinces and Quebec, to realize that the party that got the majority of the power did not get the majority of the votes. Some people say, and I have heard this in my riding, that they did not vote for that, and that the government does not deserve that much power, since most of the population did not support it. That is something to think about.
Voter turnout is in decline. When we talked about Chinese interference last year, the opposition parties agreed, followed by the Liberal Party later that summer, that civic engagement is important and that the Chinese interference problem had had an adverse effect on voters' confidence in the electoral system. The Bloc Québécois said that it was extremely important to eliminate this sword of Damocles that is Chinese interference in order to build people's confidence in the electoral system. It is by building confidence in the electoral system that we will improve voter participation in the electoral process.
The motion lauds citizens' assemblies, saying that they are independent, non-partisan and representative. That means that they will be inclusive. Obviously, we are talking about the voting system. Within this process, we are encouraging people to think about electoral reform and to propose solutions, which is an important step. We need more than people just saying that we need to do something different: We need people to propose alternatives.
We find this approach interesting. I am therefore announcing right now that the Bloc will vote in favour of the motion.
I heard my Conservative colleague's speech. The debate is interesting and we need to keep it going precisely because we are parliamentarians, representatives of the people, and not everyone agrees on electoral reform. I heard my Conservative colleague say, in short, that we would need a referendum, that people would have to really participate in the debate by indicating their agreement or disagreement. We agree. However, my colleague said that that was simple, that it was an extremely simple process. It is true that it is simple. However, just because something is simple does not mean that it is the best option.
That is why we are giving this further consideration. The Bloc agrees with this way of doing things, and we think that the advantage of this approach is that it takes things out of the hands of politicians, because, historically, that has never worked. The motion proposes that this study and reform be put into the hands of citizens, those who we seek to represent and who we want to be properly represented by our electoral system. We are therefore inviting these people to hold a citizens' assembly on changes to the electoral process.
The motion also talks about diversity, and I agree with that, but there is one small problem. Actually, the Bloc Québécois thinks it is a big problem. The motion talks about all sorts of factors to consider when it comes to ensuring that the citizens' assembly is inclusive, but nowhere does it mention that the Quebec nation must be represented on a pro rata basis to its demographic and political weight. There is nothing in the motion about that. We are therefore asking our colleagues to make sure that the Quebec nation is properly represented so that the Bloc Québécois can consider this approach to be successful.
As I mentioned, this is a sensitive issue because the voting system is the cornerstone of democracy, so this is an extremely important study. There is no perfect electoral system. For example, France has a completely different system from ours and the French are not necessarily more satisfied with their system. There will always be plenty of critics, and that is also the case in other countries. What is the solution?
It is important to note that, when political parties take office, they completely switch gears. Here is what this government said in the 2015 throne speech after taking office:
...the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
This is an example of how, unfortunately, none of the political parties can be trusted. The Bloc Québécois is perhaps the one exception. That said, we will never be at the helm in this Parliament. We can hardly afford to leave it in the hands of political parties. After the throne speech, a special committee on electoral reform was formed: 57 meetings were held, 196 witnesses appeared and 567 participants took part, only to achieve absolutely nothing.
Given that impasse, it is worth considering a citizens' assembly. It could be a solution. However, the Bloc Québécois does not want to see this happen all willy-nilly. Obviously, we want there to be a referendum, as my Conservative colleague proposed. We also want Quebec to maintain its political weight and we want the Quebec nation recognized, as the House voted in favour of by a large majority. All these criteria must absolutely be met for the Bloc Québécois to eventually support a bill that would lead to this possibility.
That was the Bloc Québécois's overall thinking on citizens' assemblies.
1091 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 11:30:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to stand today and speak in support of Motion No. 86. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the member for Elmwood—Transcona before her have done vitally important work to ensure that electoral reform is a discussion we are having in the House.
We all know why we are in this place right now talking about this. It is because of the failure of the current government to live up to the promises it made to Canadians before being elected.
I read somewhere that the current Prime Minister had mentioned over 1,600 times during the election campaign that he was going to fix our electoral system. Of course, he did not do that. As soon as he had that taste of power, he chose a different route. I think that is why electoral reform is so important. It is to prevent this constant back and forth where we see Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, without having to have a majority of votes.
I am hearing a few heckles from the Conservatives. I actually want to touch on that, because, of course, I have been listening to my colleagues from the Conservatives talk about electoral reform, how it works and whatnot. I know that some of the members speaking are being a little disingenuous.
For example, if one were to look at how Conservatives elect their own leaders, one would find that they do not believe that first past the post is the best way to do that. They use a form of electoral reform to elect their own leaders within their party. That is their party politics.
One will often hear them talking in this place about how there is a “coalition” between the New Democrats and the Liberals. Of course, they know very well that there is no coalition, that this is not what is happening. More importantly, we should recognize that coalitions are meant to be part of our electoral system and our parliamentary system.
I know that this is not the culture in Canada to date, but that is the system within which we are working. If anyone ever says that coalitions are illegal, they do not reflect the will of the people or any of that, this is actually incorrect. While we do not have a coalition, I would say that coalitions are part of our electoral system. Moreover, in fact, we have seen many times that the Liberals and the Conservatives work very well together.
My main thinking on this, in terms of why we need electoral reform, is that I feel our politics are becoming so much more divisive, so much more pushed to the sides. The problem is that the vast majority of Canadians do not live on the outside edges. Most Canadians are centrists. They want to see common sense. They want to see their politicians work together. They want to see us working on the things that matter to them. However, because of our political system, things are moved to the side. Things are moved to the edges. It is very dangerous. We are seeing this across the country.
I would be remiss if I did not raise the issue of what is happening in my province of Alberta. This weekend, I was at a rally to protect trans kids, because Premier Smith, and perhaps we should call her “Marlaina” Smith, has decided to make an attack on trans kids.
I have to say that the reason she is doing this is fully political. It is because, in Alberta, the centre, the vast majority of Albertans, are not controlling what our political parties do.
Right now, in Alberta, the far right is controlling what our premier does. We saw this with Jason Kenney. He was not brought down by Albertans; he was brought down by the far right, extreme views of some Albertans, which do not represent the majority of people who cast a ballot in Alberta.
Danielle Smith does not have to protect herself from the centrists. She needs to protect her job by actually going as far right as she can. Who cares about the most vulnerable minority groups in our provinces, who require real leadership from their premier? Who cares about kids who could lose their lives? As long as one keeps one's job, as long as one is able to do that, then one is in good shape.
When I hear the Conservatives in here trying to heckle me and saying that first past the post is the most effective, I think we can see in our country that this is not what is happening. We even see it within the Conservative Party. Erin O'Toole was not brought down by the centrists within the party. He was brought down by the far right. The Leader of the Opposition has to keep the people on the far right happy or lose his job. This is a problem with our electoral system.
I spend a lot of time talking in schools. I used to be a teacher before I was elected. I love meeting with students and talking about our electoral processes. I always talk to them about this idea that we need representation. Our Parliament needs to look like our country. We need to have the same makeup and diversity that makes Canada so wonderful and so strong. It needs to be represented in our Parliament.
The problem is that the current system makes it much harder to ensure that what happens in this House reflects what happens in our beautiful country of Canada. We do not see enough women or minority groups represented in politics. We do not see that diversity of age, ethnicity and language. All those pieces are missing when we have a first-past-the-post system.
When I speak to young people, I always think that they should all be thinking about politics as a potential career, every one of them. We need more people who want to get engaged. We need more women and more diversity within our House of Commons. However, in the back of my mind, I always think it is really hard for women to engage. It is really divisive and hateful. We make it difficult for minority groups to participate, raise their concerns and raise their voices.
I always use child care as a perfect example of that. I mean no offence to my colleagues who are older white men, but if we filled this place with old white men, would they care as much about child care as a young woman with small children would? Do we not think that there is some recognition that a 16-year-old who is going to be living on this planet a lot longer than me, or any other member, would care more about climate justice and climate change than somebody who is wrapping up their career?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Heather McPherson: I am not naming names.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important. I want to end by quoting something we heard from the Edmonton chapter of Fair Vote Canada, which is “really worried about how toxic and divisive our political discourse is becoming. Many people we talk to don't even want to get involved because of it. There is more that holds us together than divides us, but our winner-takes-all voting system is holding us back from solving problems together. A non-partisan citizens' assembly is a way to bring Canadians into the conversation about making our democracy stronger. A Citizens' Assembly can engage Canadians across the country in a conversation about improving our democracy.”
Canadians want this; as representatives of Canadians, we should be making sure that we are moving forward on it. I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all her important work on this.
1324 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 11:39:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is an elephant in the room, and there is a mouse, but we are talking about the same thing. The elephant is some people's desire to see a reform of Canada's electoral system that would bring it closer to what is known as proportional representation. What is happening is that the elephant is trying to hide by disguising itself as a mouse in the hopes of going unnoticed.
Indeed, this motion is an attempt to leave the door open on a file that did not come to fruition about six years ago because of differences of opinion among the parties in the House concerning the system that should replace the current first-past-the-post system, as well as a lack of public interest in such a reform. I will explain.
In 2016, the Prime Minister asked me to chair the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, whose mandate was to do an in-depth study of the issue. That is one of the reasons I am so interested in today's debate. The committee held a series of hearings in Ottawa before touring the country to meet with Canadians where they live.
We crossed the country, stopping in every province and territory. In all, we visited 18 cities in three weeks, moving on to a new city each morning to hold hearings in the afternoon and evening, and starting again the next morning. Unfortunately, the hearings were not standing room only. Sometimes we heard enthusiastic and even passionate testimony in favour of reform. Sometimes people read prepared and almost identical texts, a sure sign of a well-coordinated campaign behind the scenes. In Victoria, the hall was full. In Quebec City, it was not.
I was able to reconnect with some of my former NDP colleagues, who had clearly come to present briefs in favour of proportional representation in support of their party's official position.
The committee did a remarkable job. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of its members, including the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston and Joliette, as well as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is currently a minister in the B.C. government. They worked with diligence and zeal.
We produced an exceptional report, which provides a list of electoral systems from which a democracy can choose based on its political culture. The report is even used today as a political science textbook.
Two weeks ago, I was hosted at Concordia University by Professor Donal Gill, an outspoken supporter of electoral reform. He told me that he used the committee's report in class.
Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a replacement for the current first-past-the-post system. Conservatives preferred the status quo. The NDP and Greens wanted PR. Liberals have always favoured the preferential ballot.
One practical issue that arose is that any major reform of the voting system would necessarily require a national referendum. I say in jest that, if one really loves this country, one does not wish a national referendum on it. If one has lived through two Quebec referenda, one has developed a healthy aversion to plebiscites on existential matters. In a country as vast as Canada, with a great diversity of deeply held regional perspectives, a referendum on a national scale on such a fundamental question can only lead to divisive results that further challenge national unity. No thanks.
Also, a national referendum would require a singular focus by the government when so many urgent issues of importance to Canadians abound and demand attention. One must remember that, at the time the committee released its report, a major development was suddenly monopolizing the government's energies: the election of Donald Trump, who was bent on tearing up NAFTA. There are priorities.
The problem with our politics, in my humble view, is not the electoral system. Therefore, engineering it will not lead to the democratic renaissance we hope for.
Further, proportional representation is not a panacea for all that ails our politics. The real problem is the sad state of political discourse. We are losing the capacity to dialogue and reason with one another, because we cannot agree that a fact is a fact and because we judge the merits of people's views on whether they resemble us ideologically. It should not matter whether I like someone when it comes to recognizing the value of their experience or the merits of their argument.
That it does is the tragedy of our present-day politics, and I am not sure the splintering of voices in Parliament that could accompany proportional representation is the solution we are looking for. Big-tent politics that has flourished under our present system, a system that requires compromise, has its advantages.
Last, I do not believe that proportional representation is the solution to low voter turnout, especially among young people. Millennials can still be excited by a candidate and get out to vote in large numbers, regardless of the electoral system. We saw that in 2015. Rather, I suspect that low voter turnout is the product of a more and more individualistic and atomized culture. These days, personal agency seems a stronger value than collective action. Added to this are the facts that many problems seem too complex and intractable, and that big corporations and technologies, especially digital ones, seem more powerful and faster moving than governments.
When it comes to motivating young people to vote, I find that the traditional appeal to duty is no longer as effective as it was with older generations, especially those who have seen and lived through the sacrifice of war. When I speak to young people about voting, I speak of a different kind of duty, a duty to self. The ethos of personal authenticity that prevails today has in some ways become the highest value, whether we are talking about musical artists expressing themselves through their own compositions, or people broadcasting their views on every little thing on social media. What I say, especially to younger people, is that if they really live by the credo of personal authenticity and view it as the highest form of personal integrity, then to be true to themselves, they must express their views at the ballot box, whether it changes the electoral result or not.
I understand and respect the views of the member who has sponsored the motion in good faith and out of real concern for our democracy. However, I do not believe we need to revisit electoral reform at this time.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the principal analysts from the Library of Parliament who were assigned to the committee and who produced such an incredible report, which, as I said before in my speech, is still being used today as a textbook in political science classes. I am speaking of Dara Lithwick and Erin Virgint, who were really exceptional.
I would also like to commend Christine Lafrance, clerk of the committee, for her unsurpassed professionalism. She is an outstandingly effective and experienced clerk. With Ms. Lafrance at the helm, it was smooth sailing all the way.
1207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 11:57:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been such an honour to bring forward Motion No. 86 in the House of Commons and to have this vitally important debate around electoral reform.
Now more than ever we need all members of Parliament to work together to strengthen Canada’s democracy to ensure those elected are representative of our communities and to encourage members of Parliament to work together to implement real solutions at the pace required to meet the emergent needs faced by Canadians.
People are struggling across this country like I have never seen before in my lifetime. An affordable, safe and adequate place to call home is out of reach for so many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across the country. Too many are unable to provide for their families, seniors are unable to retire with dignity and people living with disabilities do not have anywhere near the supports they need to make ends meet.
To make matters worse, the impacts of the climate crisis are here, with extreme weather continuing to devastate communities across the country. I could continue listing the problems faced by Canadians for my entire speech, but because of limited time, I will say that for all these reasons we cannot keep doing things the way they have always been done.
We cannot allow the ever-increasing rise in divisive and adversarial politics we are seeing here in this very House to become the norm. This is not representative of who we are as Canadians.
That is not what Canadians want. Now more than ever, Canadians from coast to coast to coast tell me they want their elected representatives in Ottawa to collaborate with members from all the parties, engage in respectful debate when disagreements arise, and find solutions that serve the best interests of Canadians. That is what a true democracy looks like.
However, to get there we need to see representation that matches our communities.
As I have discussed in this House before, we have only 30% women elected in this House when women account for over 50% of the general population, and this is at the highest it has ever been. The same applies to Black Canadians, who make up only 2.6 % of those elected but 4.3% of the general population. Indigenous people, whose lands we are on today, hold 3.3 % of seats but make up 5% of the Canadian population. This needs to change, and soon.
To make positive changes, we need to ensure the votes cast by Canadians are truly represented by those elected in the House of Commons. Instead, we have seen a government have 100% of the power with just over 30% of the vote in the last election.
We all watched as the Liberals campaigned on a commitment to move forward with electoral reform time and time again, which has collected cobwebs ever since, with little movement and no action taken to date. This inaction has been met with silence on the issue by the Conservatives.
It is not too late for all parties to come together and do what is right. It is time we give Canadians the tools required to move forward in a positive direction, to take partisanship out of the equation and to see solutions put forward that are not based on the next election but the long-term best interest of everyday Canadians.
Canadians across the country are reaching out to their members of Parliament asking for the implementation of a national citizens’ assembly on electoral reform. Canadians are asking for the work to be done by an independent, non-partisan and representative body of citizens to bring forward real, made-in-Canada solutions to ensure Canada’s democracy is strong and those elected are representative of the vibrant diversity that makes our country the incredible place it is.
Canadians are sharing with me that the debate we are having today and the vote to follow on electoral reform has given them hope. It has given them hope that, as Canadians, we can come together and agree that strengthening our democracy is the responsibility of each of us and hope that we can envision and create a better future. Canadians have spoken, and have said loudly that this is a priority.
Bringing this motion forward and seeing the response from Canadians across the country has been incredible as I watched floods of volunteers knocking on doors, making phone calls and getting signatures on petitions and bringing them forward to members of Parliament seeking their support on this motion. Much of this work was made possible through FairVote Canada, its tireless volunteers and so many volunteers across the country.
I want to thank all those who have participated and continue to contribute to this important work. To quote Helen Keller, “Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.”
818 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:11:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we all remember this: “2015 will be the last election under first past the post.” Without access to a time machine, it is simply not possible to keep that promise anymore, but this House has an opportunity to reach out to the disillusioned and frustrated Canadians who so desperately want fair voting. We have a chance to pass Motion No. 86 on Wednesday.
Will the Prime Minister support this motion, which would allow a jury of our fellow citizens to help him find the consensus he so desperately wants?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
