UK e-petition 168657 #ERRÉ

Although the Trudeau Government seems to think ERRÉ will go away if they keep their fingers in their ears long enough, nothing could be further from the truth. For the first time in my life, Electoral Reform is on the Canadian radar. Even though most of us don’t understand all the ins and outs, we know there are alternatives to a voting system that requires far too many of us to vote “strategically” if we’re to have any chance of casting a vote that counts. And far too many Canadians who did just that in hope of electing a government that would introduce a fair system have learned a #WinnerTakeAll “majority” government can thumb its nose at voters as they cavalierly choose to break a promise repeated thousands of times during the 2015 election campaign (and after).

PEI picks PR (Brigitte Werner's photo dedicated to the Public Domain with CC0)A majority of voters in Prince Edward Island voted to adopt Mixed Member Proportional Representation in their referendum last year, just as a majority of BC Voters voted to adopt Single Transferable Vote in 2005.

The thing to remember about Canadian referenda is that they actually aren’t a part of the Westminster Parliamentary System, they’re voluntary.  It is entirely up to the government of the day whether or not to hold them.  This generally means government’s never embark on a referendum they think could be lost.  That’s why the support of 57.7% of BC voters wasn’t enough to “win.”  And why the BC Government was able to design the next referendum to fail more definitively. That’s why the PEI Government believes they can ignore their results and do it again, this time with a referendum more effectively designed to fail.

Map: 2005: 57.7% of BC voters voted YESBut times have changed.  The BC Government actually has a government that wants Proportional Representation to win the referendum. Granted, the referendum question hasn’t even been announced and the defenders of the status quo are already working hard to spread misinformation.

This is so important because once we get a Proportional Representation government anywhere in Canada, we’ll be able to see for ourselves that it isn’t any harder to vote in a Proportional system.  More importantly, we’ll see that the sky doesn’t actually fall.  Instead of having to take anybody’s word for it, we will know (as 90+ countries already using Proportional Representation know) that it is better to vote in a system designed to provide most voters with representation.  For starters, it will mean government policy that most of us will be able to live with.   Because when votes count, elected governments are accountable to voters.  We’ll be able to see with our own eyes what a difference real representation makes.

Electoral reform is inevitable, it is just a matter of time.  Sadly Canada is not the only country to have such problems.

United Kingdom

Our UK cousins have been striving for Proportional Representation in the United Kingdom for well over a century.  That’s why they had an electoral reform referendum in 2011.  The only problem was that that referendum didn’t actually include Proportional Representation on the menu; the question was whether to keep the winner-take-all First Past The Post or adopt another (arguably worse) winner-take-all system known as Alternative Vote.  [This, by the way, is Prime Minister Trudeau’s preferred system, the one our Liberals tried to rebrand as “Preferential Vote” or “Ranked Ballot.”] Fortunately UK voters chose to keep FPTP

Perhaps what’s most incredible is how many people who ought to know better think it was a Proportional Representation referendum.  I was surprised to hear one of the ERRÉ electoral reform experts from Scotland suggest that was a Proportional Representation referendum. Although the UK continues to use First Past The Post, the devolution governments of Scotland, Wales and Ireland all use some form of Proportional Representation.

Petitions

Canada’s E-616 petition garnered more than 130,000 signatures.  More than any other Parliamentary e-Petition in Canadian history.  There was some thought that this would lead to an actual Parliamentary Debate on the Electoral Reform process promised by the Trudeau Government.  But like everything else in Canada’s colonial government, there is no such guarantee; the party with 100% power can completely ignore such a petition.  Which is exactly what the Trudeau Government did.

But it’s different in the United Kingdom.  When a Parliamentary e-petition in the UK exceeds 100,000 signatures. it triggers an actual Parliamentary Debate.  Recently an Electoral Reform Petition resulted in just such a debate the other day.  It was quite interesting, and if you’re interested in taking a look, it is still online, although I am not sure for how long.  For now at least you can see it at http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c52f8c49-55ac-44c8-bf23-b1705afadaf8 or choose to download the mp3 to watch at your leisure.

But even if the video is no longer online, you’ll still be able to read it in Hansard here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-10-30/debates/9D7C1DE6-0EA9-45D2-AD7E-D0EEB3ECCB92/ProportionalRepresentation
[Of course you won’t get to see the Minister squirm in the text version 🙂 ]

It is good to see support for Proportional Representation growing in the UK as well.


Electoral Reform Committees of the House: Harold AlbrechtMay 30,…



Electoral Reform Committees of the House: Harold Albrecht
May 30, 2017  

 
Madam Speaker, I, along with all my colleagues in this House, remember very clearly the number of all-candidates debates we were at through the last campaign where we heard time after time, dozens of times, probably, the Liberal candidates promising that this was going to be the last first past the post election in Canada.

Many times throughout my colleague’s speech he commented on the democratic process. If the democratic process is so important, why would the Liberal government not allow the referendum, which was clearly recommended by the democratically appointed committee, to give all Canadians a say on the voting system they would like?

It is not fair that the Prime Minister would take upon himself that one decision for the entire country.  Why not allow the Canadian population to have its say on this important issue?

— Harold Albrecht, MP (Conservative)
    Kitchener—Conestoga

Electoral Reform Committees of the House: Routine Proceedings 
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2017/5/30/gabriel-ste-marie-2/

“… the current system poses a significant problem in that it gives rise to a major discrepancy…”

“… the current system poses a significant problem in that it gives rise to a major discrepancy between the votes that are cast during the election and the degree of power obtained by the parties and the proportion of members from each party who are then elected. That is why it should go without saying that the electoral system should be reformed to make it more proportional.                                                                                                                                                                    The current system worked very well when we were a two-party system and alternated between the two parties represented in the House. That is why the House is set up the way it is. We do not sit in a semi-circle, which would promote greater collegiality. Rather, there are rows of benches on both sides and people face off against each other. This was designed around a two-party system.                                                                                                                                                                  However, that is no longer the reality we are seeing today. There are five parties in this House alone. The current system is outdated, which is why, when I read the Liberal Party’s election promise to reform the voting system, I assumed right away that the reason for that was to deal with the situation, because it had to be done. That goes without saying.                                                                                                                                                                  That is also why the Special Committee on Electoral Reform was established. Thanks to the NDP’s initiative, the member of the Green Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois were able to sit on the special committee. The House agreed, and I applaud that initiative. I had the opportunity to be on the committee during the tours, and I can tell you that we worked hard. We did not sleep much, because we had a very full schedule and it was very intense. There were a lot of trips and meetings. We learned a lot from that experience. The consensus that emerged from the consultations was the desire to reform the voting system in order to reduce the gap between the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of seats obtained. That must be done, because there truly is a consensus on that.                                                                                                                                                                  The committee worked hard on this matter and was thus able present a very interesting brief. What really surprises me, however, is that the Liberal Party members on the committee were opposed to it. It is rare for there to be such cooperation, but it is still a fundamental question. We received approval from the Conservative Party, NDP, Green Party and even Bloc Québécois members. In fact, there was such agreement regarding the committee’s report, that we did not even prepare a dissenting report. Throughout the consultations, the Liberal members seemed to support the direction we were taking, which is why I was so disappointed to see them reverse their position                                                                                                                                                                  During consultations, the Minister of Democratic Institutions stated that she trusted the committee, that she was confident that it would produce a good report, and that we would move ahead. Every time we asked her a question in the House about her desire to reform the voting method to add an element of proportionality, she sang the same old tune, that is, until she saw the direction the committee was taking with its report. She then began speaking harshly of the committee’s work. She apologized later on, but by that time the cat was out of the bag: things were not going the way the Liberal Party wanted. They were in line with its election promise, and that would not do.                                                                                                                                                                  That is when the government disavowed the report. The Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and appointed a new minister, who disavowed everything—the promise as well as the report’s findings. This great deception can only fuel the public’s cynicism.                                                                                                                                                                   In the House, voters who vote for small parties are discriminated against, because the proportion of elected members from the small parties is smaller than the proportion of votes that they received. I would like to note another discrimination against people who vote for small parties.                                                                                                                                                                  The discrimination is two-fold. Voters who vote for those small parties are not as well represented in the House. They often make strategic choices to not vote for the small parties because they tell themselves that, although the small party represents them better, the voting system means that their candidate is less likely to be elected.                                                                                                                                                                  The other type of discrimination concerns the fact that there are two types of members in the House. Indeed, parties with fewer than 12 elected members in the House, like my colleague from Saanich–Gulf Islands’s Green Party and my own, fall into a second category, one that is truly discriminated against and in which members have fewer means to do their work than those from a recognized party. Discriminating against us in this way amounts to a breach of the rights of the voters who voted for us. In my opinion, that should be changed as soon as possible. Our current system goes against the very principles of democracy. I would therefore qualify it as undemocratic.                                                                                                                                                                  Allow me to give some examples. First, as members who are not part of a recognized group, we are excluded from committees. However, that is where the real work of improving legislation takes place. We can only take part at the very end of the process, to propose amendments that are quickly debated before being rejected or not. If the chair finds our amendments to be out of order, we cannot respectfully tell him that we disagree with him, as we do not have a right to speak. We thus have fewer means of presenting the concerns of our fellow citizens. For example, the Bloc Québécois addresses matters and interests of Quebec, and we would like to be able to promote them in the House, as we find that they are not properly addressed by the other parties in the House. That is our specific task, and yet we cannot perform it.the current system poses a significant problem in that it gives rise to a major discrepancy between the votes that are cast during the election and the degree of power obtained by the parties and the proportion of members from each party who are then elected. That is why it should go without saying that the electoral system should be reformed to make it more proportional.                                                                                                                                                                  The current system worked very well when we were a two-party system and alternated between the two parties represented in the House. That is why the House is set up the way it is. We do not sit in a semi-circle, which would promote greater collegiality. Rather, there are rows of benches on both sides and people face off against each other. This was designed around a two-party system.                                                                                                                                                                  However, that is no longer the reality we are seeing today. There are five parties in this House alone. The current system is outdated, which is why, when I read the Liberal Party’s election promise to reform the voting system, I assumed right away that the reason for that was to deal with the situation, because it had to be done. That goes without saying.                                                                                                                                                      That is also why the Special Committee on Electoral Reform was established. Thanks to the NDP’s initiative, the member of the Green Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois were able to sit on the special committee. The House agreed, and I applaud that initiative. I had the opportunity to be on the committee during the tours, and I can tell you that we worked hard. We did not sleep much, because we had a very full schedule and it was very intense. There were a lot of trips and meetings. We learned a lot from that experience. The consensus that emerged from the consultations was the desire to reform the voting system in order to reduce the gap between the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of seats obtained. That must be done, because there truly is a consensus on that.                                                                                                                                                                  The committee worked hard on this matter and was thus able present a very interesting brief. What really surprises me, however, is that the Liberal Party members on the committee were opposed to it. It is rare for there to be such cooperation, but it is still a fundamental question. We received approval from the Conservative Party, NDP, Green Party and even Bloc Québécois members. In fact, there was such agreement regarding the committee’s report, that we did not even prepare a dissenting report. Throughout the consultations, the Liberal members seemed to support the direction we were taking, which is why I was so disappointed to see them reverse their position.                                                                                                                                                                  During consultations, the Minister of Democratic Institutions stated that she trusted the committee, that she was confident that it would produce a good report, and that we would move ahead. Every time we asked her a question in the House about her desire to reform the voting method to add an element of proportionality, she sang the same old tune, that is, until she saw the direction the committee was taking with its report. She then began speaking harshly of the committee’s work. She apologized later on, but by that time the cat was out of the bag: things were not going the way the Liberal Party wanted. They were in line with its election promise, and that would not do.                                                                                                                                                                  That is when the government disavowed the report. The Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and appointed a new minister, who disavowed everything—the promise as well as the report’s findings. This great deception can only fuel the public’s cynicism.                                                                                                                                                                  In the House, voters who vote for small parties are discriminated against, because the proportion of elected members from the small parties is smaller than the proportion of votes that they received. I would like to note another discrimination against people who vote for small parties.                                                                                                                                                                  The discrimination is two-fold. Voters who vote for those small parties are not as well represented in the House. They often make strategic choices to not vote for the small parties because they tell themselves that, although the small party represents them better, the voting system means that their candidate is less likely to be elected.                                                                                                                                                                  The other type of discrimination concerns the fact that there are two types of members in the House. Indeed, parties with fewer than 12 elected members in the House, like my colleague from Saanich–Gulf Islands’s Green Party and my own, fall into a second category, one that is truly discriminated against and in which members have fewer means to do their work than those from a recognized party. Discriminating against us in this way amounts to a breach of the rights of the voters who voted for us. In my opinion, that should be changed as soon as possible. Our current system goes against the very principles of democracy. I would therefore qualify it as undemocratic.                                                                                                                                                                  Allow me to give some examples. First, as members who are not part of a recognized group, we are excluded from committees. However, that is where the real work of improving legislation takes place. We can only take part at the very end of the process, to propose amendments that are quickly debated before being rejected or not. If the chair finds our amendments to be out of order, we cannot respectfully tell him that we disagree with him, as we do not have a right to speak. We thus have fewer means of presenting the concerns of our fellow citizens. For example, the Bloc Québécois addresses matters and interests of Quebec, and we would like to be able to promote them in the House, as we find that they are not properly addressed by the other parties in the House. That is our specific task, and yet we cannot perform it.”

- Gabriel Ste-Marie, Electoral Reform, Committees of the House: Routine Proceedings; May 30th, 2017 Joliette, QC

Defenders of the Status Quo

Defenders of the Status Quo

Yesterday Canadian Members of Parliament voted against Nathan Cullen’s Motion to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform ~ which would have meant adopting the ERRÉ Committee Recommendations Negatived Yeas 146 | Nays 159 MPs who voted Two Liberal MPs voted to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, but all the rest (159 LPC MPs)…

View On WordPress

Defenders of the Status Quo

Yesterday Canadian Members of Parliament voted against Nathan Cullen’s Motion to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform ~ which would have meant adopting the ERRÉ Committee Recommendations

Negatived
Yeas 146 | Nays 159

MPs who voted

Two Liberal MPs voted to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, but all the rest (159 LPC MPs) voted against it.  Find out who voted, and how on the Government site.

None of the ERRE Committee Liberals voted for their own report!   Francis Scarpaleggia, Ruby Sahota, Matt DeCourcey and John Aldag voted against, while Sherry Romanado (along with another 20 Liberal MPs) abstained from voting.

MPs who didn’t vote

LIBERAL

  1. Frank Baylis ~ Liberal ~ Pierrefonds — Dollard (Quebec)
  2. Doug Eyolfson ~ Liberal ~ Charleswood — St. James — Assiniboia — Headingley (Manitoba)
  3. Ken Hardie ~ Liberal ~ Fleetwood — Port Kells (British Columbia)
  4. Bernadette Jordan ~ Liberal ~ South Shore — St. Margarets (Nova Scotia)
  5. Karen Ludwig ~ Liberal ~ New Brunswick Southwest (New Brunswick)
  6. Robert Morrissey ~ Liberal ~ Egmont (Prince Edward Island)
  7. Seamus O’Regan ~ Liberal ~ St. John’s South — Mount Pearl (Newfoundland and Labrador)
  8. Sherry Romanado ~ Liberal #ERRE Committee ~ Longueuil — Charles-LeMoyne (Quebec)
  9. Randeep Sarai ~ Liberal ~ Surrey Centre (British Columbia)
  10. Scott Simms ~ Liberal ~ Coast of Bays — Central — Notre Dame (Newfoundland and Labrador)
  11. Anita Vandenbeld ~ Liberal ~ Ottawa West — Nepean (Ontario)
  12. Hon. Larry Bagnell ~ Liberal ~ Yukon (Yukon)
  13. Hon. Judy Foote ~ Liberal ~ Bonavista — Burin — Trinity (Newfoundland and Labrador)
  14. Hon. Chrystia Freeland ~ Liberal ~ University — Rosedale (Ontario)
  15. Hon. Marc Garneau ~ Liberal ~ Notre-Dame-de-Grâce — Westmount (Quebec)
  16. Hon. Kent Hehr ~ Liberal ~ Calgary Centre (Alberta)
  17. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc ~ Liberal ~ Beauséjour (New Brunswick)
  18. Hon. Carla Qualtrough ~ Liberal ~ Delta (British Columbia)
  19. Hon. Geoff Regan ~ Liberal ~ Halifax West (Nova Scotia)
  20. Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan ~ Liberal ~ Vancouver South (British Columbia)
  21. Right Hon. Justin Trudeau ~ Liberal ~ Papineau (Quebec)
Justin Trudeau's Election Promise: "We will make every vote count."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau couldn’t even be bothered to show up.

CONSERVATIVE

  1. Mel Arnold ~ Conservative ~ North Okanagan — Shuswap (British Columbia)
  2. Blaine Calkins ~ Conservative ~ Red Deer — Lacombe (Alberta)
  3. Hon. Ed Fast ~ Conservative ~ Abbotsford (British Columbia)
  4. Randy Hoback ~ Conservative ~ Prince Albert (Saskatchewan)
My own Conservative MP spoke in favour of the motion on Tuesday, then voted for it Wednesday.

NDP

  1. Niki Ashton ~ NDP ~ Churchill — Keewatinook Aski (Manitoba)
  2. Rachel Blaney ~ NDP ~ North Island — Powell River (British Columbia)
  3. Fin Donnelly ~ NDP ~ Port Moody — Coquitlam (British Columbia)
  4. Peter Julian ~ NDP ~ New Westminster — Burnaby (British Columbia)
  5. Pierre Nantel ~ NDP ~ Longueuil — Saint-Hubert (Quebec)
  6. Tracey Ramsey ~ NDP ~ Essex (Ontario)

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

  1. Rhéal Fortin ~ Bloc Québécois ~ Rivière-du-Nord (Quebec)

INDEPENDENT

  1. Hon. Hunter Tootoo ~ Independent ~ Nunavut (Nunavut)

I’m disapopointed to see half a dozen NDP MPs didn’t vote (even worse, some are leadership camdidates).  But even if all the non-Liberal MPs had voted, without more Liberals voting for it, the motion was bound to fail.  Which is why we need Proportional Representation.


I’m Deeply Sorry My Party Broke Its Promise On Electoral Reform

I'm Deeply Sorry My Party Broke Its Promise On Electoral Reform:

The other Liberal MP  who voted to support Mr. Cullen’s Motion to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reforwas MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, MP for the Beaches–East York, Ontario riding.

He went on the record back when the promise was broken on February 2017.

“Democracy’s legitimacy lies in its authority from the people, and the majority of Canadians are left unrepresented in governments under our current voting system.”

Only 2 Liberal MPs were heroes today.  #ERRELiberal MP Sean…



Only 2 Liberal MPs were heroes today.  #ERRE

Liberal MP Sean Casey was one of only 2 Liberal MPs who voted to support Mr. Cullen’s Motion to concur in the Second Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.  

Had that motion passed, it would have meant the federal Electoral Reform process that had been promised by the Liberals while campaigning in 2015, then reiterated multiple times by PM Trudeau and the Trudeau Government, and which they spent millions on before the PM unilaterally decided to pull the plug, then Parliament would have accepted the ERRE Committee report, and the process would have continued.

Sean Casey is the MP for the riding of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, where they had a referendum in which voters chose to adopt the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system, and which that Provincial Government chose to ignore. 

Here’s the relevant bit of MP Sean Casey’s official statement:

Today in the House of Commons, I cast my vote in favour of a motion on concurrence with the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

PEI has a special connection to electoral reform. In November 2016, Islanders voted to support the implementation of a form of proportional representation in our voting system. 

In Charlottetown, about two-thirds of the ballots cast, in the end, supported a proportional system.This process ran concurrently with our government’s consultation process on changing our federal voting system as well. Understandably, many people were frustrated and disappointed with the announcement that the government would not be pursuing electoral reform, given a lack of consensus around a new electoral system.

Those who have been following the work of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform will know the amount of effort that went into producing a majority report recommending a referendum – which would include a proportional option. I cast my vote in favour of the report in order to represent the two-thirds of Charlottetown voters who supported a provincial proportional option, and in recognition of the important work conducted by the members of the Committee.

Despite my vote and the votes of other members, the motion did not pass. An important part of our system is respecting the will of the House of Commons, whose members represent all Canadians across the country. I hope my constituents know that I will continue to stand for them when it matters