Today Parliament voted on Motion M-86 for a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.
The result was:
102 YES 219 NO
In addition to the support of the NDP, Green Party and Bloc MPs, 40 Liberal and 3 Conservatives voted for the motion.
MOTION TEXT
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.
============================
In Alberta, the two NDP MPs were the only ones to stand up for Citizens Assembly.
All other Alberta MPs, whether Conservative or Liberal, voted NO.
============
Alberta 's two NDP MPs all voted YES
Blake Desjarlais Edmonton Greisbach YES
Heather McPherson voted YES
Alberta Conservative MPs all voted No
Aboultaif, Ziad (Edmonton Manning) NO
Barlow, John (Foothills) NO
Cooper, Michael (St. Albert—Edmonton) NO
Calkins, Blaine (Red Deer—Lacombe) NO
Dreeshen, Earl (Red Deer—Mountain View) NO
Genuis, Garnett (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) NO
Goodridge, Laila (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake) NO
Hallan, Jasraj Singh (Calgary Forest Lawn) NO
Jeneroux, Matt (Edmonton Riverbend) NO
Kelly, Pat (Calgary Rocky Ridge) NO
==
Kmiec, Tom (Calgary Shepard) NO
Kurek, Damien C. (Battle River—Crowfoot) NO
Kusie, Stephanie (Calgary Midnapore) NO
Lake, Hon. Mike (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin) NO
Liepert, Ron (Calgary Signal Hill) NO
Lloyd, Dane (Sturgeon River—Parkland) NO
Majumdar, Shuvaloy (Calgary Heritage) NO
McCauley, Kelly (Edmonton West) NO
McLean, Greg (Calgary Centre) NO
Motz, Glen (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner) NO
==
Rempel Garner, Hon. Michelle (Calgary Nose Hill) NO
Soroka, Gerald (Yellowhead) NO
Shields, Martin (Bow River) NO
Stubbs, Shannon (Lakeland) NO
Thomas, Rachael (Lethbridge) NO
Uppal, Hon. Tim (Edmonton Mill Woods) NO
Viersen, Arnold (Peace River—Westlock) NO
Warkentin, Chris (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie) NO
Webber, Len (Calgary Confederation) NO
====
Liberal MPs in Alberta all voted NO
Boissonnault, Hon. Randy (Edmonton Centre) NO
Chahal, George (Calgary Skyview) NO
============================
Elsewhere
all NDP MPs voted YES* 25
both Green MPs voted YES 2
all Bloc Quebecois MPs voted YES* 32
40 Liberal MPs voted YES but all others voted NO (or did not vote) 40
Three Conservatives voted YES, but all the rest voted NO 3
Lobb, Ben (Huron—Bruce) Conservative YES
Nater, John (Perth—Wellington) Conservative YES
Ruff, Alex Conservative (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound) YES
all three Independent MPs voted YES
Rayes, Alain Independent (former Conservative) (Richmond—Arthabaska) YES
Vuong, Kevin Independent (elected as Liberal but now sits as Independent) (Spadina—Fort York) YES
Dong, Han (elected as a Liberal but now sits as an Independent ) (Don Valley North) YES
* (my total is 105 not 102, so it looks like either three in the NDP or BQ did not vote or the 102 total is wrong.)
===============================
here is link to some of the discussion of the Citizens Assembly private member bill.
Debates (Hansard) No. 275 - February 5, 2024 (44-1) - House of Commons of Canada (ourcommons.ca)
Here's some highlights of the debate with some comments by me (Tom Monto) added in square brackets.
Leah Taylor Roy Lib. (Ontario) spoke in favour.
Michael Cooper (Alberta Conservative MP (St. Albert-Edmonton)
embarrassingly for ER-minded Albertans, Michael Cooper (Conservative St. Albert) opposed the bill saying the CA alone anyway should not be enough but a referendum must be held before ER.
(he obviously did not notice that the present FPTP system was not endorsed by any referendum before coming into use in 1867 or 1870 (when only single-member districts became the only type of district used in federal elections.)
It is unfortunate that despite surveys consistently showing that two-thirds of voters oppose FPTP, only two referendums have gone in favour of ER. (Both were ignored anyway!)
Either the surveys are wrong (they are 1 time out of 20) or referendums just do not capture true sentiment of voters.
in survey after survey, most voters say they do want ER,
but the BC 2018 referendum, for example, did not capture that sentiment due to anti-PR campaign or due to the mechanics of voting in the referendum esp in BC's two-part question.
For analysis of the 2018 BC referendum, see Denis Pilon's statement on why it failed. Among other reasons
-- very effective disinformation and obfuscation campaign by a very, very small NO group which together with
-- lukewarm support by NDP ministers, and
-- an unnecessarily-complicated question by David Eby killed any chances of the referendum passing.
The only BC referendum where majority voted in favour of reform (so far anyway) was the simplest. in 2005 it was a simple choice of STV or FPTP.
Cooper also said every vote counts the same in FPTP.
This is despite how a Liberal or NDP vote in Saskatchewan (or a Conservative vote in PEI did not get any representation in last election.
(and despite how his vote on the bill shows that not all votes count the same - when he voted the way he did against the Citizens Assembly, he represented only his constituents who oppose the CA, not those who support it. Those in St. Albert who oppose the bill had no one to speak for them in the HofC.
Also he ignored that his party took 88 percent of the Alberta seats with only 55 percent of the Alberta vote.
Cooper credits FPTP with giving Canada stable government, but to my mind that Canada's record as a stable country is not due to any virtues of FPTP.
And he obviously overlooked how Canada has held more elections since WWII than many countries with PR. Frequent elections are a sign of instability, as a government with majority support usually lasts four or five years while a minority government lasts as short a time as nine months (as happened to PM Joe Clarke in 1979).
But whether a minority government or a one-party majority, a government lasts as long as the HofC passes budgets and legislation, or until the PM/Gov-Gen orders a new election, or five years whichever comes first.
And two of Canada's longest-lasting governments were not one-party majority governments - they were two-party coalition governments.
And is the Canadian government actually that stable?
Norway, Germany and Ireland each held only 19 elections from 1945-2017.
So PR obviously does not make a country unstable necessarily.
In that same time period Canada held 23 federal elections.
(so where is the stability?)
And I should mention that if there is stability under Canada's FPTP (there isn't)
and if it is due to one-party governments (which it is, at least usually, if it is stable at all),
it is due to false-majority governments where the ruling party did not get a majority of the votes cast.
Almost all our majority government have been false-majority governments.
so political stability in that we had "only" 23 elections from 1945 to 2017
but political instability in that we had as many as 23 elections from 1945 to 2017,
Germany and Ireland had only 19 and they use PR.
And Germany was in rough shape after WWII.
But meanwhile we had mis-representation and minority rule during the time of those false-majority governments, while Ireland and Germany had governments in which the ruling parties were elected by a majority of votes.
Two of the longest-lasting governments that Canada has had were coalition governments
1917-1921 Unionist
1926-1930 Liberal -Progressive.
These are the only two coalition governments the Canadian HofC has had since 1867, So that shows that coalition governments can work in Canada.
Provincially there have been coalition governments (including Alberta's UFA-Labour. Labour MLA Alex Ross served as Labour minister in the UFA government, 1921-1926, although I understand his input was not sought at cabinet meetings by 1925 or so.)
and there have been minority governments that were propped up to last full or almost full terms,
which, like coalition governments, are perfectly legal under our parliamentary system.
If Cooper even thought about what he was saying and happened to know about the two coalition governments, I doubt that Cooper would see the two federal coalition governments as proof that FPTP does not produce stability.
His comment is wrong however you look at it. Maybe we should write him emails showing his error.
===
Cooper says "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."
As he is objecting to a second- or third-place candidate being elected, obviously he is talking about a single-winner contest, which can never be PR at all. so he is lumping dis-proportional Instant Runoff Voting in with PR and then saying PR does not work. A bit silly.
And yes, if he objects to vote transfers enabled by ranked votes changing the popularity order of candidates, then he does not see the whole reason for ranked voting - it is to allow just that sort of change when that sort of change would improve proportionality of the outcome, when it would help more voters actually see their choice elected.
Cooper obviously does not see the dis-proportionality done by X voting in single-winner contests.
and therefore thinks that any change from the ordering of candidates in the first count of a simple X voting election is therefore un-democratic when in fact the opposite is the truth - the first result in X voting all too often has a minority choice at the top of the poll with the majority of votes cast for the other candidates.
only by changing that order can the majority of voters in the district find representation.
And that is the kind of change that happens when ranked votes are used.
Only in Single Transferable Voting do ranked votes combine with multi-member districts to produce proportional representation.
single-winner FPTP cannot do that.
single-winner ranked voting (IRV) does not do that.
STV does ensure that in each district a high proportion of votes are actually used to elect the members in that district and they are elected in due proportion to the vote share that each party gets in the district.
list PR can be used in multi-member districtt to produce proprotional representation as well.
but FPTP can never produce PR or ensure that a high proportion of votes are used to elect the legislature, at least not where three or more parties get sizable chunks of the votes cast.
==================
Alain Therrien (BQ MP)
Happily, the next speaker Alain Therrien (BQ MP) makes more sense when he says that CA could serve as way to get ER when past reliance on parliamentarians have not achieved anything.
==========
Heather McPherson, NDP Edmonton-Strathcona,
one of only two NDP MPs in Alberta despite almost 20 percent of Alberta votes going to NDP (and thus making that party due 6 or 7 MPs in Alberta),
McPherson made good points about how even Conservative Party does not use FPTP to choose their own leader.
And how Poilevre and Smith provincially have to appeal to far right to stay on as leader due to off-balance power within their respective parties.
Apparently responding to heckles from Conservative Alberta MPs, she said
"we should recognize that coalitions are meant to be part of our electoral system and our parliamentary system....
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....
Moreover, in fact, we have seen many times that the Liberals and the Conservatives work very well together."
[She was posslbly referring to the Conservative-Liberal Unity Front that fought Alberta Social Credit in the late 1930s, or the fact that sometimes in history, the Conservatives or the Liberals did not run a candidate against an elected Labour, or CCF or NDP member, in order to allow the right wing to coalesce behind just one candidate.
Whe Socialist Party of Canada MLA O'Brien (Alberta) ran for re-election in 1913, he actually got more votes than in 1909 but was denied the seat due to right-wing united action.
The United Conservative Party (government of Alberta today) is united front of two conservative parties., etc.]
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
...
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....
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....
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.
....
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.
=====================
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal MP
... 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 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.
...
Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a replacement for the current first-past-the-post system.
[actually he goes on to show that it was not that they could not agree on replacement for FPTP - it was that some wanted FPTP to continue and not all those that wanted it scrapped wanted PR.]
Conservatives preferred the status quo.
The NDP and Greens wanted PR.
Liberals have always favoured the preferential ballot. [he means Instant runoff voting - not PR at all]
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.
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.
[he is like Alberta Conservative MP Michael Cooper this way - but the present electoral system was not brought in after a referendum, as <i say above]
...
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....
[obviously the filtering that occurs in big-tent parties is good for some but not good for all. it is good for those who have power, and thus they opose change, and that in fact is why we need a Citizens Assembly or a PR-elected Hof C in the first place.]
...
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.
[odd how Scarpaleggia overlooks the unfairness of the present electoral system and seems to think others should drink the kool-aid, the self-delusion that each vote counts under FPTP, when it so obviously does not.
Scarpaleggia was elected with a majority of votes. but not far away from his riding one Liberal MP was elected in 2021 with 43 percent and another with only 45 percent. In those ridings, most of the votees cast did not elect anyone. Anyone of logical mind would consider whether voting make any difference, with such results.
Scarpaleggia's own riding, Lac-St.-Louis, has electd a Liberal MP and only a Liberal MP every election since its creation in 1997. Anyone of non-Liberal sentiment would have to wonder whether it made logical sense to vote when a Liberal is always - literally always - elected in that riding.
So sure. blame low voter turnout on popular culture. Blame it on the kids, anything other than the electoral system where in any one district only some votes will be used to elect someone and all others disregarded,
in a district such as Scarpaleggia's, votes for a certain party are always used, while votes for any other party are never used to elect someone.]
...
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.
[We would not need to if electoral reform had been done as promised in the 2015-2019 term.]
Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP):
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.
...
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....
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
...
Proportional representation also encourages parties to work together. ...
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....
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. ...
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. ...
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.
==============
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP):
[the main mover of Motion M-86]
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. ...
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.
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....
[under FPTP] we have only 30 percent women in this House when women account for over 50 percent of the general population,...
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 percent of the power with just over 30 percent of the vote in the last election....
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....
===============
Vote was held
the motion was voted down 102 in favour, 219 against.
In Alberta, the two NDP MPs were the only ones to stand up for Citizens Assembly.
(one of them, Heather McPherson, is quoted above)
All other Alberta MPs, whether Conservative or Liberal, voted NO. so 32 Alberta MPs voted no.
===================================
Opmerkingen