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 11:12:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 86, which calls on the government to establish a citizens' assembly on electoral reform.
While I appreciate the spirit in which the motion has been put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I am unable to support it for reasons that I will set out.
I would acknowledge that a citizens' assembly can play a constructive role in making recommendations around alternative electoral systems. After all, a citizens' assembly is comprised of non-partisan private citizens who are selected randomly as part of a lottery process.
Accordingly, a citizens' assembly is well positioned to consult, to deliberate and to design alternative electoral systems. Indeed, citizens' assemblies have played precisely this role twice in Canada, in British Columbia and in Ontario, in 2004 and 2006 respectively. However, the motion does not precisely call for that. Rather, it calls for the establishment of a citizens' assembly with a mandate to “determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.”
Based on the wording of the motion, if the citizens' assembly determined that electoral reform were desirable, presumably it would go about making recommendations on alternative systems, but the wording on its face is somewhat ambiguous. It is not clear. What is clear is what is missing from the motion, and that is any mention that there be a referendum of Canadians to decide whether to adopt any new electoral system.
A citizens' assembly on its own is completely insufficient to determine any new electoral system. Likewise, I would submit it would be inappropriate for politicians to make such a determination, for example, by way of a bill introduced in Parliament, having regard for the fact that all of us have partisan political interests that would influence decisions around the design of any new electoral system. Nothing short of a referendum will suffice.
A referendum is needed in order that any new electoral system have the moral weight and legitimacy that would be needed. Indeed, anything less would likely cast doubts among segments of Canadians that certain partisan actors had taken advantage or manipulated the electoral system for partisan or ideological gain, which would undermine democracy and undermine confidence in any new electoral system.
Therefore, I cannot support the motion on that basis. I cannot support a motion that could be construed as recommending a process whereby a citizens' assembly on its own would determine a new electoral system as opposed to merely recommending alternative electoral systems.
With that, I would like to make a few observations more broadly on the matter of electoral reform.
Proponents of this motion make the case that this is something that Canadians want. Indeed, within the motion itself, a poll is cited that indicates a sizable percentage of Canadians would like to see a citizens' assembly. I would respectively fully question whether this is something that Canadians want, and I question it not on the basis of a poll but on the results of votes of Canadians in seven referendums held over the past 20 years in three provinces. In five out of seven referendums, Canadians, given the choice, have voted against electoral reform and in favour of the status quo, first-past-the-post system.
The only referendum in which a clear majority of voters elected to adopt a new electoral system was in the 2005 referendum in British Columbia in which 57% of voters gave the green light for electoral reform, but it did not meet the threshold for implementation. There were two subsequent referendums in British Columbia in which more than 60% of voters opted for the status quo.
Although it may be unfashionable to say, perhaps the reason voters have opted for the status quo is that the first-past-the-post electoral system has served Canadian democracy well. There are many merits to the first-past-the-post electoral system, including that it is straightforward. It can best be summed up as this: the candidate with the most votes wins. What could be more straightforward than that? It is also inherently democratic. It is based on the premise that each voter is equal; one person, one vote with each vote weighted equally. That is in contrast to alternative systems where some votes count more than once, based on second and third ballot choices for example.
As former prime minister, the current secretary of foreign affairs in the United Kingdom, David Cameron observed in a column he wrote in The Telegraph in 2011, the first-past-the-post system produces winners whereas alternative voting systems, in some instances, produce winners out of losers, in the sense that candidates who, in some instances, placed second or third out of first-ballot rankings end up winning.
Further, first past the post is efficient and transparent. It tends to produce decisive results. Canadians learn, more or less, on election night what kind of government they are going to get. That is in contrast to many European countries where governments are formed weeks, sometimes months, after election night. That is not efficient. That is not transparent and, I would submit, it is not democratic. First past the post ensures accountability; it is heavy on accountability. When Canadians decide that it is time for a change, time to change the government, first past the post tends to produce such an outcome, and it provides accountability by connecting members of Parliament with their electors and their constituents. That is in contrast to other electoral systems where, for example, members are elected based on being on a party list.
Those are just some of the many reasons the first-past-the-post system is a system that has worked. I would submit that it is not by accident that Canada is one of the most stable and strong democracies in the world. I do not think it is an accident that we have seen, for more than 150 years, the peaceful transfer of power. Very simply, if the system is not broken, then there is no need to fix it.
1025 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 11:46:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, proportional representation is fundamentally about ensuring Parliament reflects how people voted. It is about upholding each citizen's right to equal treatment under election laws and equal representation in our democracy. Unfortunately, our current electoral system, first past the post, is outdated and unfair. It does not accurately represent how people voted; creates false majorities results in barriers to participation for women, racially marginalized and other equity-deserving groups; and results in worse outcomes for everyday people, including on things like the environment, the economy, health and tackling inequality. At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and when we are witnessing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis and increasingly divisive politics, we need to ask whether our current system serving Canadians. I would say no.
Before getting into politics, I taught political sociology at the University of Victoria. I also lectured in political science classes on the topic of electoral reform, and I co-hosted a television program called Voting for Change ?, which brought experts, elected officials and community leaders on to discuss proportional representation.
It is clear to me that proportional representation is more fair, more effective and a more engaging democratic system. Canadians would benefit from this change. However, regardless of which electoral system one prefers, the process of engaging Canadians in a citizens' assembly is one that everyone should be able to get behind.
Of course, the Liberal Party does not want this, because it reminds people that the Prime Minister failed to deliver on his promise to reform our electoral system. He made a firm and unequivocal commitment, which he and his team repeated over 1,800 times, telling Canadians that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. Canadians believed this promise, and it would have been the right thing to do. However, it was one of the first of many promises to Canadians that he would break. Over the past eight years, the Liberals have shown that they are more interested in maintaining power and the status quo than in ensuring that every vote counts.
Canadians deserve leaders who follow through on their promises, leaders who have a sense of integrity and leaders who are willing to listen to the voices of Canadians. Instead, we have a Prime Minister whom Canadians no longer trust and a party that has broken their trust so many times that people now joke that the worst thing for a policy is to be an explicit Liberal commitment; policies have a much better chance if they are unspoken vested interests of wealthy Liberal insiders. Trust has been broken, and this is why a citizens' assembly is such an important tool.
A citizens' assembly has legitimacy and public trust because it is independent, non-partisan and a representative body of citizens. Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians support the idea of striking a non-partisan, independent citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which is not surprising when Canadians are feeling disheartened by the polarization of politics. They are concerned about the health of Canada's democracy, and we are witnessing low voter turnout, as well as voter disengagement. Citizens' assemblies have been used successfully in Canada and in other countries around the world to tackle difficult issues through nuanced public deliberation. While 90% of Canadians want a Parliament that reflects how people voted, a citizens' assembly on electoral reform would give citizens a leadership role in building consensus on the specific model for electoral reform for Canada.
To me and to the majority of Canadians, it is clear that proportional representation is a fairer and more democratic system. It ensures that every vote counts and that all voices are heard. It would lead to a more representative government that truly reflects the diversity of our country; the research backs this up. Proportional systems have better representation of women, racialized groups, 2SLGBTQ+ folks and other equity-seeking groups. Canada has an embarrassingly low percentage of women in Parliament, and the House has never reflected the diversity of our country. However, there is an abundance of research showing how proportional representation increases representation of marginalized groups, creating new avenues of political power for groups traditionally denied fair access to power and representation. Representation matters. A true democracy is not just a system that represents the majority but also one that represents, upholds and protects the rights of minority folks.
Right now, when trans kids are facing such intense discrimination and hate from right-wing elected leaders, it is important we ensure that their voices are represented in Parliament. I want to tell trans kids that we see them, we hear them and we will stand with them.
Proportional representation also encourages parties to work together. Since no single party is likely to win a majority of seats in the legislature, it leads to more cooperation and compromise. Parties' being forced to work together leads to more inclusive policy-making. As they are forced to consider the views of other parties and their constituents, and enact more representative policies that reflect the needs and interests of a broader range of citizens, we get better policy.
It also helps governments avoid policy whiplash. Under the first-past-the-post system, we typically oscillate between two parties that frequently win false majorities. Policy whiplash happens when, in a polarized system, party A comes in and undoes the majority of policies of party B in order to start its own agenda. Then, when it is defeated, party B comes in and undoes all of the work of party A. This happens back and forth, to the detriment of citizens. It wastes bureaucratic resources and stalls progress that would support Canadians.
Proportional representation forces parties to work together, which helps reduce political polarization and gridlock. It can lead to more stable and effective governance as parties are less inclined to undo the work that has gone on before, when they were included in creating it. There is greater continuity because it requires greater consensus.
Overall, proportional representation can help create more inclusive, representative, and effective democracies. We have seen a glimpse of that when we have had minority parliaments in Canada. We would not have health care in Canada if it were not for a minority government forcing Lester B. Pearson to work across party lines with Tommy Douglas. We would not be rolling out dental care for the first time in Canada if New Democrats had not used our power in a minority government to force the Liberals to provide dental care. We get better policies when we work together.
I think one of the most compelling arguments for proportional representation is that people want to vote for what inspires them. They want to vote for the candidate who best aligns with the vision they have for the future. Unfortunately, our current system requires them often to vote for what they do not want. People want to see their vote count. It is part of the reason proportional representation increases voter turnout. Many people are strategically voting, but it is demotivating. Under our current first-past-the-post system, many Canadians feel that their vote does not matter. Proportional representation would ensure that every vote counts. It would allow a more diverse range of voices to be heard in Parliament. It would also encourage greater voter turnout, as people would feel their vote actually matters.
The Liberal government has claimed that proportional representation would lead to unstable minority governments. This is simply not true. Many countries around the world use proportional representation, and they have stable governments. In fact, the vast majority of OECD countries use the proportional system. Proportional representation can lead to more stable governments as parties are forced to work together.
I think we have all seen very clearly how our current first-past-the-post system has an incredible amount of divisive politics in it. Just look down to the United States to see, to put it mildly, an example of a majority system with divisive politics. When designing a made-for-Canada proportional system, we also have the opportunity to make it more difficult for extremist parties to gain power, as we could set thresholds requiring parties to win a significant portion of the vote in order to gain seats in Parliament.
It is time for the Liberal government to stop making excuses and start listening to the voices of Canadians. We need a government that is committed to democratic reform and that is willing to take action to ensure that every vote counts. That is why I am joining the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith to call for a citizen’s assembly on proportional representation. It is time for people to get on board and understand that Canadians deserve a voice. The government needs to listen.
Proportional representation is the future of democracy in Canada. Let us put in place a fairer system where Parliament truly reflects how people voted. Join me in calling for a citizen’s assembly on proportional representation. Together we can create a more just and fair Canada.
1523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
