SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 228

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 228 - Oct/3/23
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Oct/3/23 6:40:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this evening to pursue a question I initially asked on May 8, 2023. That question related to electoral reform, and specifically, I was picking up on the fact that, just in the previous weekend, at the Liberal Party policy convention, the Liberals had adopted a resolution very close to a motion that had been put forward by my Green colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. Now the NDP has put forward another motion that is very similar, from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, calling for a citizens' assembly. The Liberal Party gathered in Ottawa and voted for holding a citizens' assembly to investigate electoral reform. The Prime Minister's initial response to the media was that there was “no consensus”, in his language, to pursue a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. When the hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour, responded to me on that day back in May, he reiterated this notion that there was no consensus for a citizens' assembly, so let us just frame tonight's debate around this central point. I do want to stop and thank the grassroots campaigners, who are non-partisan citizen activists of Fair Vote Canada, for pursuing this matter and demonstrating that the majority of Canadians want to see a citizens' assembly. To say there is no consensus around getting rid of first past the post, as the Prime Minister says, I think is debatable, but it is a move to a different voting system. To say there is no consensus and that therefore we will not pursue a method to find consensus is absurd. A citizens' assembly, a non-partisan citizens' assembly, on electoral reform is for the very purpose of finding consensus. Bringing Canadians together who are chosen randomly, citizens' assemblies are a really fascinating tool in democracies. Canada has used them on this topic but only at the provincial level. There is great support for moving to a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. By the way, eight times since 1921, this House or various law commissions have studied first past the post, and in every instance since 1921 no body, as in a group of people, a House of Commons committee and so on, has ever found that first past the post is an appropriate system for Canada. That is because ever since the early 1920s, we have not been a two-party system. We have had three, four and, now in this House, five parties. Therefore, in an electoral system with a first-past-the-post system, inevitably and invariably the vote is distorted between the popular vote and the seat count. Especially, as I said, since 1921, every authority that has studied the matter has said that first past the post does not work for Canada. However, to find the new system, to develop consensus, a citizens' assembly is an excellent tool. I found it bizarre to be told in question period that we did not have consensus on the tool to find consensus. I note parenthetically that it appears to me the Prime Minister will not think there is consensus on anything until everyone agrees with him, and that is not a tool for consensus. We absolutely must have fair voting so that Canadians have confidence that the way they cast their vote has an impact on the result.
574 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border