Debates of Sept. 30th, 2003

Supply

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver for his comments. The debate we have had so far has been good because we have heard different kinds of options and possibilities.

In response to the member's suggestion about the motion put forward by the NDP today, the whole point of the motion is to allow a process to look at this issue, involve Canadians in the review of the issue of proportional representation and ensure that we have a representation of government that truly reflects how people feel and how they vote. Within our motion that possibility exists.

It may well be that citizens would be involved in the commission. There could be public hearings. There may be the possibility of a preliminary vote of some sort. Those are all things that would need to be discussed.

What we have to do today is to agree on whether there is an important principle here, and that is that the present system does not represent how Canadians feel about their elected representatives in the way they are voting.

What kind of feedback has the member had in his constituency and other places across Canada? I know, by the feedback I have received from people and in the e-mails I received, there is a great deal of interest outside of this chamber from members of the public who simply do not feel they are being represented by the current system. Of course, it is the oldest trick in the book for those in power to say, “This is a good system. It does well by me”. However when we look at it from the point of view of voters and for Canadians who do not feel represented, then the principle is that we need to have that changed. Would he comment on that?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we have started off with a really good debate. We are hearing a lot about the technical aspects of electoral systems and how other countries have chosen different methods to that which we have here in Canada. I just think it is a shame that good debate will not be moved out of this House into the public arena because that would be very healthy.

Just before I answer another part of the member's question about what I hear in public, I should perhaps mention that if we were to go ahead and have a referendum, if the government would agree with the idea, maybe we should have a second question on that ballot about the Senate, the other place, and whether the people of Canada want to abolish it, as the NDP would promote, or whether they would rather have a democratically elected Senate which also truly represented people by making senators accountable through the ballot box and also by having true representation across the country rather than political appointments to that place.

In terms of what I hear from my constituents, and I think perhaps the member would agree with me, there is not a spontaneous outpouring of feeling about this, but as soon as it is mentioned to somebody there is enthusiasm for a change.

I mentioned earlier that the Canadian Alliance received 25% of the votes in Ontario in the last election and what that would have represented in this place in terms of seats. If the people in Ontario, who voted Canadian Alliance or NDP or PC, had an opportunity to see that transferred into representation in this place, what a much more healthy environment it would be, instead of what we have here, the pretense that the government side somehow represents all of Ontario. It does not. It simply does not have that mandate at all.

The member is right that there is tremendous interest out there. It is not spontaneous yet, but I am really confident that if we had the opportunity to move this into the public arena, to have the debate out there, this would have been one of the most interesting, lively and enthusiastic debates we would have seen in the country in many years.

[An hon. member]

Since the Charlottetown accord.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Since the Charlottetown accord, another member says. It would have been very healthy for the country to discuss whether there should be a change.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech the member referred to the experience of New Zealand. I think he indicated there was as many as 30 different parties seeking to be elected.

I can almost imagine what a ballot would look like because I had the experience of being a UN observer at the first democratic election in Russia and it had about 47 parties, one being the beer party and a few others.

However it does raise the issue about the fact that there will be parties that represent maybe a narrow focus of interest. Clearly acknowledging that they would not form a government, they may have a populace view on something that may attract attention and get, say, the 5% which would allow them to get some of the proportionally distributed seats that would be left over. That certainly is a concern.

The other concern I would have with the New Zealand experience is one on which the maybe the member would comment. What does the legislative chamber of New Zealand look like and what is its dynamic when half the members, or a large number of members, are elected to represent ridings, some who come from a list of people who may themselves be unable to get elected on their own merit but happen to be there for other unknown reasons? It would seem to me that there may be a tendency to polarize people within the place which may lead to less homogeneity in terms of the dynamic of the house.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before commenting specifically on the New Zealand experience, the member mentioned that in Russia there were something like 47 parties on the ballot, and certainly in New Zealand there are more than 30.

He seemed to be disturbed by that. It does not disturb me a bit because I believe in democracy and I believe in the right of people to get out in the public domain and promote a cause. If they can get enough people to sign up to get on the ballot, let them get on the ballot. What is he afraid of? Does he feel that he is incapable of choosing out of a list of 30 which party he wants to vote for or is he afraid that perhaps some of constituents might choose somebody other than the ones he would approve? That is democracy.

Unfortunately we see on the government side of the House the desire to suppress small parties. For years, since the minister who spoke earlier came here in 1993, as minister he has tried to suppress the smaller parties in Canada with his 50 candidate rule.

We told him over and over from this side of the House it was anti-democratic to try to prevent small parties from running by saying they had to have 50 candidates. The courts at all the lower levels told the government the same thing. However he wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars fighting it all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada only to have the Supreme Court of Canada strike it down the bills he passed to suppress the activities of small parties. Even the Supreme Court of Canada told the minister that in a democratic country there is no place for that type of suppression.

What is wrong with having 40 different parties on the ballot? It is democracy and if they could all get elected to this place, so much the better. However general experience tells us that will not happen. Most of them are special interest groups that attract a few votes but they will not get into the place.

In terms of the New Zealand experience, and the dynamics in the house, actually rather than it being very polarized, I would say that most New Zealanders, certainly for the first term, complained that it was not polarized enough. They went from a very strict party type system to a more homogenous system where there was a lot of cross-voting, and it was quite different from what New Zealanders had experienced in the past. They did not like it in the first term. They seemed to prefer it in the second term, and it looks to me like MMP is there to stay in New Zealand.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make one final point. Call me a bit cynical but a proposal that would put forward a list that would be controlled by parties makes me a bit nervous about possible manipulation, given the record of some of the old parties with patronage. Could the member could address that concern?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. That is a great risk. I did mention some advantages of that type of system while I was speaking in terms of a previous member, Mr. Grubel, but my personal preference out of all the systems is actually the one used in Australia, the single transferrable ballot, because I think that gives legitimacy to a member who ends up with more than 50% of the vote.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the New Democratic Party for giving us an opportunity to debate an extremely important issue. I am referring to the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, which reads:

That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.

As I mentioned, this gives us an opportunity to discuss in this House an issue that is extremely important to Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois. In 1998, I chaired a Bloc Quebecois working group on citizenship and democracy. We addressed the topic of electoral systems, more specifically proportional representation, but also other approaches such as a double ballot system.

We looked at this with the aim of improving our democratic life and ensuring each citizen of Quebec full citizenship—not just legal citizenship, but true citizenship—and more control over their democratic institutions. In this context, it is clear that proportional representation is an extremely interesting possibility. I will come back to this.

This debate is not new. Earlier, the government representative said it was premature. In Quebec, we have been discussing electoral systems, more specifically proportional representation, for 40 years. René Lévesque set up a commission, there was a discussion paper, and Robert Burns was put in charge of the consultation.

In the end, it all fell through because of the political realities in Quebec. Nonetheless, a lot was achieved. René Lévesque defended the idea of having proportional features in our electoral system in order to improve democracy through greater representation.

This has gone on for 40 years now. Just recently, the Parti Quebecois government struck a committee to study the reform of its democratic institutions, chaired by Claude Béland. It undertook a broad consultation process, as well as holding the Estates general on the reform of democratic institutions. The first recommendation in the Béland committee's report, “La participation citoyenne au coeur des institutions démocratiques québécoises”, bears a strange resemblance to the motion before us now.

That recommendation read as follows:

That the government note the public's very strong desire for a review of the current voting system, and give Quebeckers the option of adopting by referendum, before the mid-point of the next government mandate, regional proportional representation:

They then went on to propose a system.

So there is nothing new about this debate. It is not premature, but rather something that has been around for 40 years. It is high time some progress was made. The Liberal government of new Quebec premier Charest has made a commitment to follow up, at least in part, on the report tabled by the steering committee on the reform of democratic institutions.

Clearly, the Bloc Quebecois reflections relate to our option, that is the sovereignty of Quebec. For us, reform of the voting system in Quebec is an occasion to not only improve democratic life in Quebec but also to steer Quebec toward the full realization of its potential as a nation, that is toward sovereignty. We are therefore defending this concept, while proposing a certain number of mechanisms, to which I shall return later.

The NDP has taken the initiative of this debate within a Canadian framework and we will, of course, be bringing our own perspective into that debate, that is defending the interests of Quebec. We have never had any ideas about taking the initiative to reform Canada; we want out. Neither do we want to prevent Canada from improving its democratic life and a number of its policies.

In fact, we have never hesitated to support reforms or motions, whether from the government or from the opposition, that were aimed at improving the living conditions not only of Quebeckers, but of Canadians as well.

It is in that context that we are taking part in this debate. We believe indeed that changing the electoral system at the national level could improve democracy and give a stronger voice to Quebeckers, even within the present federalist system. This will be the thrust of our speeches.

There are certainly a number of aspects to consider. For example, the recent re-drawing of electoral boundaries, which has been and is still being forced upon us, does not meet the objectives stated in the NDP motion. In the case of Quebec, for example, its relative political clout is reduced with the new boundaries.

It is clear that, should there be a change to make our electoral system proportional or something along these lines, the Bloc Quebecois would defend Quebec's interests in ensuring that Quebec's political clout would not be reduced by such a reform the same way it was reduced with the re-drawing of electoral boundaries. I would remind members that we will have 308 seats, including 75 from Quebec, which is certainly less than the proportion of the population that Quebec represents, especially in light of the fact—and I will come back to this—that we are a nation within the Canadian framework and that Quebec's specificity has to be recognized. I should have said that it “should have been” recognized because we know full well that this is impossible within the current federal framework. This is why we promote the sovereignist option. Quebec achieving sovereignty would solve this problem once and for all.

We have to move toward reform. It is an important issue for Quebecers, but also for all Canadians.

We have to remember what democracy is all about. I think everyone would agree that the best definition is the one used by Abraham Lincoln. He said “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. It is an all-encompassing definition, because it is not only the government “of the people”, or the government “by the people”, or the government “for the people”. To have democracy, all three elements are required.

Of course, this definition clearly sets democracy apart from the other forms of government that have existed throughout history, such as monarchy, oligarchy and plutocracy. Not only that, but it also includes the three elements essential to democracy.

Let us consider the first element, the government of the people. What people are we talking about here? The white male majority? I doubt that is still what is meant by this nowadays. Are we talking about the Canadian people, which does not recognize the existence within its own borders of various nations? And not only of the Quebec nation, but also of the Acadian nation and the first nations.

Civil society knows better. In fact, planning is underway for a social forum of the peoples or nations of Canada to be held in Montreal, in June of 2004. Civil society, even in Canada, recognizes the existence of several nations within the political entity called Canada.

Therefore, while reforming the voting system, we would have to take that into consideration and not treat all of the provinces the same way, especially those, like Quebec and the Quebec people, which are the cradle of a nation.

Now, we know that a people is made up of varying interests and that this is enriched by it. I often hear politicians run down so called pressure groups, and the concept of civil society. But civil society—people organized in various groups or associations—is a necessary part of democracy. There can be no real democracy without civil society; I am thinking about countries like Haiti for example.

The people must be able to organize in unions, in community groups. To democratize political life, the organization of civil society must be promoted. Obviously, this must not be done at the cost of the power each citizen must have in a democracy. Indeed, one vote must carry the same weight as another vote.

In this context, it seems to me that proportional representation, or rather electoral reform to ensure proportional representation, be it through elements of proportional representation or any other formula, improves public involvement and that of the various groups and individuals that make up the public. It advances democracy. The proportional system does provide for a better representation of the various schools of thought within the population. It allows these groups to have hope, and in our case, to have one or more representatives in the National Assembly or in the House of Commons.

In the current system, the first past the post system, third parties have virtually no chance of being represented. This turns people off politics, resulting in a portion of the population preferring to advocate their chosen options through groups other than political parties. We can see it. It is clear to everyone. There is currently a certain disparagement of partisan politics, because it is obvious that a whole series of concerns are not being reflected in this House. Why would individuals or groups bother getting involved in politics if they believe they do not stand a chance to ever be represented in the House of Commons?

Consequently, proportional representation and improved representation in this House will ensure that the entire population has more control over our democracy. This also means that we must find out who the voters are. This is particularly true at the federal level. Voter turnout has declined with each election. I could give the figures I have here on voter turnout.

For example, in 1988, 75% of the electorate voted in the federal election. In 1993, voter turnout declined to 69%. In 1997, it was 67%. Finally, in 2000, it was 61%. As politicians and supporters of democracy, it is impossible not to be affected by these figures. To a large extent, this disinterest stems from the fact that various political movements in Canada and Quebec do not feel they will ever be represented in the House, given the current electoral system.

Furthermore, democracy is a means to resolve our conflicts, in terms of the public. We must not deny the existence of diverging interests within our societies. Democracy gives us a way to avoid confrontation, including violent confrontation, through a process that allows the majority to choose from a number of options. But our democracy must be sound to properly fulfill this function.

Abraham Lincoln said, in relation to democracy, that it is the government of the people, but also by the people. It is important to understand that if we want the people to be represented, we need, as I said earlier, a democracy that represents the overall interests of Canadians and Quebeckers. This, however, is not enough.

We must also consider that, within this democracy we share, there is not only this representative democracy in which the political parties play an essential role, but there is also participatory democracy. Once again, this participatory democracy imposes a certain number of conditions. One of these conditions—and this is true in nearly all the industrialized countries except for Canada—is the decentralization of powers.

What we have here is an aberration that has been going on since the second world war, if not longer. The federal government is taking on increasing responsibilities. We have spoken of this many times. The fiscal imbalance makes this possible. Since Ottawa has more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, it uses this money to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, especially those of Quebec.

It is clear that for Canada, perhaps, this does not pose a problem in the political sense, since the Canadian nation views the federal government as its government, and therefore, it is the responsibility of the federal government to build the Canadian nation. Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of Quebec, the Quebec nation in fact, because this nation is not recognized with Confederation, within the Canadian federation.

Nevertheless, even in countries where issues of nationhood do not arise, power has been decentralized towards the regions.

I think that the future prime minister's speeches are eloquent on this topic, when he talks about intervening directly with municipalities. This is quite the opposite of what is happening in the industrialized countries.

Local development must also be encouraged; in a participatory democracy, the institutions themselves must be democratized. MPs have an extremely important role to play. Even the future prime minister admits that the House of Commons currently suffers from a democratic deficit.

With proportional representation, the role of the member of Parliament changes and becomes more highly valued. This would be another element in the democratization of institutions, which is necessary in order to have true government by the people.

Finally, there must also be government for the people. That means that democracy is an essential value and that the fight for it must never stop, because democracy is not something that is given to us once and for all. For example, members will recall the coup d'état in Chile in 1973, against President Allende, who had been democratically elected. Many of us were afraid, when President Lula of Brazil was elected, that certain foreign powers, who shall remain nameless, would intervene in the electoral process. That did not happen, and so much the better.

Democracy is not something one is given once and keeps forever. It is something that we must fight to preserve. It is more than a mere value; it is also a means. We must ensure that democracy is used to meet the objectives we have set for ourselves as a society. This requires a plurality of views.

Looking at the Liberal Party of Canada, there are a number of MPs sitting under the Liberal banner who should be in another political party, because of our first past the post system. This was evident during some of the debates on certain fundamental values: they are conservative. They ought to be in a party that reflects their ideas, which are more conservative than those of the bulk of the Liberal cabinet.

But since they realize they likely have no chance at all of getting elected as members of another party, they prefer to wear the Liberal label, which gives them the chance to get elected in their ridings. As a result of this, the nature of this Parliament is distorted.

I knew Jean-Claude Malépart well. He was the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and died of cancer. Our leader took over his riding, thereby becoming the first sovereignist MP from Quebec. Mr. Malépart used to say that, basically, he espoused the ideas of the NDP, but realized that if he ran under the NDP banner in Quebec—that being before the Bloc Quebecois came into existence—he would not have much chance of getting elected. He told me he was essentially a social democrat, but was obliged to run under the Liberal banner if he wanted to have any chance of getting elected.

I feel that this is an illustration of the distortion that results from the first past the post system. In order for us to have a government for the people, the House of Commons must be representative of all interests, in order to democratically decide, with a majority, what our objectives as a society should be.

In closing, I will just state that proportionality is a societal choice. It is the choice in the majority of the 53 most stable democracies. Of these, 25 have opted for proportional representation, in whole or in part, and only 15 plurality, while another 13 have a combination of the two.

We are the exception, not the rule. A broad debate is necessary. I think that the NDP's proposal paves the way for such a debate. For democracy to be improved, each vote has to carry the same weight, electoral results have to reflect the different currents of Canadian and Quebec society as closely as possible, the quality of our democratic life has to be improved and there has to be better representation. Proportional representation, through the parties' responsibility of putting together lists, will foster the representation of women and ethnic minorities in this House.

For us, it is essential—and I will end on this—to maintain a balance between regional and local representation. We think there should be discussions about this system. That is what we have proposed for Quebec. The important link between members and the regions, between members and local communities, should be taken into account. Now all sorts of approaches are possible.

I think the New Democratic Party's motion allows us to have this important debate. It is in that context that we will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I was following very carefully the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. My question has to do with his mentioning that we need to have proportional representation for certain groups for members of Parliament.

In our system we do not elect the party leaders. The members of the party elect their own leadership. That will happen for the Liberal Party on November 14 and 15. I am sure the members of the Bloc Québécois will elect their own leadership for their party. The party leadership will decide who will go on the list. At the end of the day, people will have no say on who is going to be on the list except the members who are party to the leadership chosen by the members. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with me that it is possible the person chosen by this system would be more accountable to the leadership of his or her own party rather than people in general, the way it is now.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that electoral reform will bring about a complete change in political habits, that is to say the introduction of political practices completely different from existing ones. I gave examples of distortions created by the current system.

I believe there has to be a way for the proportional system to allow this relationship between citizens and elected members, even in a proportional system. It think that a mixed or weighted proportional system would do that. This is what the steering committee on the reform of democratic institutions recommended, that a number of members be elected in each riding and those on the list be elected on a regional basis. They would be accountable to the citizens of their respective regions.

These are terms and conditions. I think that the approach proposed by the NDP would address all of these very real difficulties.

I also disagree with the idea of MPs being answerable only to their political party. But at the same time, I cannot accept that, like the National Assembly to some extent, this House of ours would not reflect the various schools of thought found in the Canadian and Quebec societies. There is a balance to strike. Consequently, I do not share the view that proportional representation, pure and simple, is desirable, because it takes away much of the influence citizens have on their representatives. But these are terms and conditions. I think that, when it comes to our democratic life, we could come up with a system much more effective than the current one.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I would like to compliment the Bloc Québécois on its ability to have women as a good percentage of its members. We in the New Democratic Party as well work very hard at having close to equal representation of women in the House. We are at about 40% and I believe the Bloc is as well.

I was very interested when I went to Scotland a couple of years ago to see that it has a system of PR. Women are 40% of that house of representation. It is a very exciting feeling, different from this place, which now has 20% women. My question for the member is, how does he see some kind of proportional representation system assisting in redressing the great imbalance that now exists in this House around equity between men and women?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her compliment. Clearly, the Bloc Quebecois, particularly our leader, is greatly concerned about women's participation. He struck a committee to recruit the greatest possible number of women to represent the Bloc Quebecois in the next federal election. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville in this House is co-chairing this committee along with the hon. member for Longueuil.

How will proportional representation ensure that there is better participation by women? In terms of Quebec, we focused in particular on the National Assembly, which currently has 125 members. What if 75 were elected based on revised ridings where traditional rules apply, and the other 50 members were elected based on proportional representation, with regionalization being another factor. The political parties would then be responsible for establishing priority lists of candidates. Should a party not provide a list with a sufficient number of women candidates, including key positions for women, the public would see just how committed that party was to ensuring greater participation by women in the National Assembly.

The same goes for ethno-cultural communities. I think that we are working extremely hard, and it is not easy to ensure equitable representation in this regard. We are experiencing objective difficulties.

in a system based on proportional representation, each party would be responsible for presenting its list of candidates. Consequently, this would be an indication of each party's commitment. If, for example, the top ten candidates included two women, in ninth and tenth place, it would be clear that these women have only been included for electoral and opportunistic considerations, since the two often go hand in hand.

If, however, the top five candidates, including the number one spot, included one woman and some young people or groups traditionally at a disadvantage in a first past the post system, this would show how important this is to that party. Furthermore, this would enable political parties to become true arenas of political involvement for these groups.

This is true for women, but also for other groups, in particular young people and so forth, who do not believe that the current structure of political parties allows them to be elected or to elect candidates that better represent who they are or what they believe in.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by the hon. member for Joliette. It was like listening to a lecture in applied democracy. It was an extremely interesting speech.

For example, he told us that democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. He talked about retroactive participation and participatory democracy.

With respect to electoral redistribution, I would like to ask him a question. What really still upsets me is that regions like mine will lose a member of Parliament. It is true as well in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, and both are regions which, in my opinion, need stronger representation. I am thinking of the native communities in the north of my riding.

I would like him to tell me if proportionality would have any chance of correcting these errors in democratic administration. In fact, in our area, we are hardly even a democracy. In an area of some 38,000 km

2

, where there are native people who have the right to be represented but their representative barely has time to meet them, that is certainly not an active form of democracy.

I would like to hear what he has to say on this subject.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Champlain for his question, because this allows me to come back to something that is extremely important.

That is why I was saying that while I agree with changing the voting process to proportional representation, other factors have to be considered. That is the approach the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting.

That said, we do not have an immediate solution. However, the regions have to be properly represented. This may mean that we should promote the representation of a certain number of regions beyond normal parameters, if we applied the simple one voter, one vote criterion.

We must also consider the fact that Canada is made up of different nations. I have said so. Unfortunately, the House does not recognize this, and neither does Canada. This will make it very difficult to change to a proportional type electoral system—to make any change, for that matter. The Quebec nation was disadvantaged by electoral redistribution. We lost political weight, relatively speaking, which is a further argument for sovereignty.

As for aboriginals, since the party draws up a list of candidates, each party could have representatives from first nations communities among its top candidates, as I mentioned earlier for women and ethnic communities. This would allow them to be represented. Often they are not represented because they are, to some extent, spread out across Quebec. Consequently, they are never, or rarely, a true political force in their region.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I am pleased to take part in the supply motion debate. The motion posed by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle deserves to be read again. It is:

That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.

Since the debate today is about elections, I want to take a moment to draw the attention of the House to two related events that occurred yesterday.

The premier of Newfoundland, after doing a dilatory dance of the seven veils all summer, finally called an election in that province. Our national caucus met in St. John's earlier this month. It was clear to all of us that change was in the air. I can tell the House that Danny Williams will make a fine premier of Newfoundland.

Yesterday the people of Prince Edward Island went to the polls and re-elected Premier Pat Binns and his Progressive Conservative colleagues. This is Premier Binns' third consecutive victory, a remarkable and historic achievement indeed.

The real story of the election in Prince Edward Island is that it was conducted in the wake of a devastating hurricane that struck the night before polling. Approximately 44,000 Islanders were without electricity. Trees blocked roadways. Houses and vehicles were damaged and boats were sunk. What did Islanders do on that hurricane election day? They went to the polls. They cast their votes. They voted, like most Canadians. More than 80,000 people voted. The voter turnout was over 83%. All of us should salute the people of Prince Edward Island with 83% voter turnout the morning after that savage storm.

I should also point out that Prince Edward Island still uses door to door enumerators for its elections rather than the flawed system of no enumeration and a permanent list for federal elections. There was an 83% turnout. Federally we are nearing 60% with a permanent list.

Turning to the motion, I congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his persistence in bringing it to the House. He has fought for years to bring forward a debate on proportional representation.

At a Progressive Conservative Party meeting in Edmonton in August 2002, we debated a report on democratic reform. That report was a concrete achievement for the PC/DR coalition. The position of the Progressive Conservative Party adopted at Edmonton is:

Upon formation of government, a commission will be immediately struck to hold public consultation on the most appropriate electoral system for Canada. The commission will be empowered to make recommendations to Parliament regarding any changes in the electoral system. Parliament, if possible, will implement changes in time for the next election.

We agree with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he says there needs to be a public debate on this issue. As the people of Prince Edward Island showed yesterday, Canadians do take their franchise seriously and we should have a system that allows them full expression of their wishes. We also need a system that will allow for the governance of a very large and complex national society.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle engaged his party on the general use of proportional representation about four years ago. Thus far he has not defined a system, and I think it is fair to say, he has not engaged the wider community in a detailed discussion about systems. He is still at the first step. He wants a debate on an undefined system of proportional representation, but that debate is not now taking place around the kitchen tables in Canada. In fact, where he comes from the debate is about BSE and what the government is doing about it to make sure that the cattle producers stay in business.

Proportional representation has some merits. It also has some negatives. It significantly increases the power of the party elite and those who decide who gets on a list of party nominees. Some feel it favours the status quo and party veterans. Canadians are not talking about the merits of this or that system of proportional representation.

The motion calls on the government to hold a referendum and then to flesh out a system of proportional representation for Canada. Here is where the proposal fails. In order to have a meaningful referendum, the population must be informed and there must be, to use a phrase of a few years ago, clarity in the question. People have to know what they are voting for or against.

The motion calls upon the government to ask Canadians if they want to trash the present system and opt for an undefined system of PR and then the country will embark upon the job of defining a new system. Experience shows that Canadians sometimes find it difficult to agree on things. Is it wise to further erode the existing system, flawed as it may be, without having a decision on a replacement system? The community needs to know what the precise alternative is before they vote in a referendum.

At the same Edmonton policy conference on democratic reform, the PC Party also considered the use of referenda. Let me quote from chapter nine of the report which deals with referenda:

Progressive Conservative MP Patrick Boyer told the House of Commons on 18 June, 1991: “I think it is highly appropriate, from time to time--not on every question, certainly not, but on those issues of transcending national importance--to put the question to people so that they can all become involved in this and get out of themselves and express their feelings on the issue. Ventilation on some of these issues is a very important part of Canada's nature as a democracy.

Another proposal is government sponsored referenda. Only three national referenda have been held in Canadian history, in 1898 on prohibition, in 1942 on conscription, and in 1992 on the Charlottetown accord. While they ought not to be used lightly, it may be thought that the Canadian people could preferably be consulted more frequently than every 50 years or so.

The federal Referendum Act, enacted June 23, 1992 by the Mulroney government in preparation for the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, provides a strong framework. For example, it stipulates that the question must be able to be answered by a yes or no, that a referendum may not be held simultaneous with a federal election, that the Canada Elections Act applies, and that three days of debate will be held on the question in the House of Commons.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports government sponsored referenda in two circumstances.

The first example is in the case of constitutional amendments. Two provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, already require that proposed constitutional amendments be approved in a referendum, and the Charlottetown accord has almost made this an unwritten convention. We would recognize this requirement. Passage in a referendum would require support from voters according to the appropriate constitutional amending formula, i.e., the different requirements for amendments under sections 38, 41 and 43.

The second example is in the case of issues of transcending national importance, to use Patrick Boyer's expression, where the federal government judged that legitimacy for a specific legislative proposal requires direct approval by voters. The government could also seek guidance from Canadians at the outset of a nationally important policy discussion as to whether legislation ought to follow and what form it should take.

As well intended as it may be, the motion calls for a referendum to put an end to the existing electoral system without placing a specific legislative proposal before Canadians. That is the flaw in the member's motion.

We agree that we need to debate possible changes to the system, both here in Parliament and in the community, if the community wants to engage in that debate. It would be folly to force a process debate on Canadians if they do not want one. They have other issues on their minds. Judging by the mail in my office and my conversations with constituents, this is not their number one issue. The number one issue in my riding of Dauphin--Swan River is mad cow, or BSE. Another is the proposed same sex marriage legislation.

But if there is to be change, it is time to hold a referendum only when there is a concrete alternative to place before voters. We do not think it is the time to ask voters to dismantle one system without having something to offer as a replacement.

At the same meeting in Edmonton, which the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle referred to, under chapter 12, this is what we concluded in the Progressive Conservative Party platform when we talked about an electoral system:

The plurality system of elections (commonly known as “first-past-the-post”) has been a feature of many liberal democracies, including Canada. Dysfunctional aspects of plurality systems have led most liberal democracies to adopt other vote counting rules. Even the United Kingdom, the birthplace of many of our institutions and practices, is seriously considering change. Only the United States and Canada seemed to be wedded to the status quo, though in both there are calls for reform and, historically, there have been non-plurality elections.

No electoral system is perfect. For Canada, however, the plurality system has been so problematic that political scientists have produced volumes of critiques.

Simply, plurality elections create distortions between votes received by parties and seats won. Majority governments are created when parties fall far short of 50% of votes cast, indeed, short of 40%. Parties oriented toward certain parts of the country do better in terms of seats than do parties with national appeal, with more or less the same share of the votes. I think the current climate or environment of this House is a good example. Discrepancy between votes and seats exaggerates both the regional strengths and the weaknesses of parties, thus exacerbating regional tensions and conflicts.

Plurality systems from the perspective of voters are also a problem. A voter, instead of casting a genuine vote for the preferred party, will vote strategically in order to defeat another party. Voting should be an affirmation rather than a negation. As I indicated earlier, our preference is that a commission be struck to hold public consultations to find out just exactly what the community of Canadians is looking for.

Even more important than electoral reform is parliamentary reform. We need to look at it. We have heard parliamentary reform discussed in this House for probably over the last 20 years. It appears that very little reform has taken place. There are issues like free votes, confidence votes and party discipline in this House.

Again, at the Edmonton convention in August 2002, the Progressive Conservative Party had a position:

The importance of caucus solidarity in the British/Canadian parliamentary system has to be acknowledged. On it rests the integrity of a party's commitment to implement, in government, the platform on which it sought the support of the electorate. It is the means by which an MP respects his/her commitment to the party platform on which he/she was elected. Equally important in Canada, the party caucus is the indispensable parliamentary forum in which parliamentarians must reconcile different regional, cultural, social and economic perspectives in order to achieve a workable national consensus.

However, the commitment to party solidarity in Canada's House of Commons in modern times has been far beyond what is needed for the effective functioning of our parliamentary democracy. Its enforcement by party leaders and whips has been excessive to the point of demeaning MPs and of bringing the parliamentary process into disrepute.

Our proposal states:

the status, the dignity and the multiple loyalties of an individual MP--to his/her constituents, to his/her convictions, to his/her party, country and Parliament--must be respected. MPs, individually and collectively, can be trusted to decide how to honour each of these responsibilities in a particular instance.

Change in some parliamentary practices is essential. In particular: “Free votes”, especially on amendments to government bills and at the 3rd reading stage of bills, should be the norm rather than the exception.

The policy also states:

To make this possible, the extravagant and unwarranted use by governments of the “confidence” convention, with its threat of dissolution and a new election in the event of losing a vote that is not explicitly designated as “non-confidence”, must be severely curtailed.

Another issue that is very important to the House deals with standing committees of the House of Commons:

Standing Committees of the House of Commons, to whom all legislation is referred for detailed examination, and who can also undertake special policy studies, have become tools of Prime Ministerial patronage and, in a majority government situation, enforcers of the Government Whip's will.

Since the recent changes in parliamentarians' pay packages, the committee chairs and vice-chairs get extra pay, which has the effect of increasing the PM's control over his nominees. With the stroke of a pen, the whip can remove an independent-minded MP from a committee and replace him or her with someone more reliable. Need I say more?

We believe that:

The ability of the House of Commons to hold the government accountable and to exercise its legislative supremacy must be restored. A large measure of autonomy, subject only to the authority of the House as a whole, must be given back to committees. In particular: MPs must be assigned to committees by vote of the House. Once there, they are “permanent”, i.e. to serve until prorogation of that session of Parliament. An MP must co-sign any Whip's notice for his/her removal from a committee.

Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs must be elected by secret ballot of the members of the Committee.

Opposition parties should get a share of the Committee Chairmanships that is roughly equal to the share of seats they occupy in the House. This will be negotiated among House leaders.

Parliamentary secretaries and other MPs in receipt of extra pay (Whips, Caucus Chairs et al) should generally not be eligible for membership on Standing Committees.

Ministers should be required to remain at Committees while witnesses are heard on their bills and amendments are discussed. Ministers must be present through clause-by-clause consideration of their bills.

Let me conclude by saying that on the issue of proportional representation there is no doubt that it is about access to power. In a representative democracy like ours, elections are about power. Winners wield power. Losers and those not engaged in elections can be left behind. Proportional representation describes the voting system used in most democracies in which parties or individuals gain office in direct relation to their support among voters. Without doubt, PR is fairer than our current system, but in our particular case we do not know what system the NDP is advocating.

Of equal importance, proportional representation makes power more accessible by increasing the number of effective votes and the diversity of winners. In our current system, most elected officials, including members of the House, come from single member constituencies where winning is required to gain the most votes in the constituency, up to 50% of the votes or, as we always say, 50% plus one.

Our system results in greater injustice to any person voting with people who are in a permanent minority in the single member constituency, like members of the NDP. Such groups have little power and, as a result, do not have their interests addressed or even taken seriously. They also have little chance to change the majority's view.

I will conclude by saying that because this motion says the referendum must be held within one year, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting against the motion. As I indicated earlier, the cost of a referendum separate from an election dictates that it should be held at the same time as the next federal election. It is debatable that the population can be informed in time of all the options, benefits and pitfalls of such a system.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party for his comments, but I think it is regrettable that he seems to be suggesting that Conservative members will not be supporting the motion because somehow they cannot agree that a referendum should be held within a year or that it should be held separate from an election.

It is regrettable because I think there is a very important principle being debated today in the House. It is the principle that we need to devise and engage with Canadians in a discussion about a system that will truly reflect how people are voting. I think the member would probably agree with that. I listened to his remarks very carefully and it seemed to me that he was expressing a lot of concern about our present first past the post system.

I would ask the member to take a look at the motion before us today and to consider the fact that within the motion, by saying that a referendum be held within a year on the principle of changing the present system to proportional representation, surely within that process it would be an incredibly enriching experience to have a debate out in the community, in the public realm, in the House, before we even get to a referendum.

That debate is actually already taking place across Canada. There are organizations campaigning on an idea of PR. The idea of actually having an open discussion beyond what is taking place here in the debate today is something that I think is very important. It seems to me that this is where the opportunity lies to actually engage with people and to deal with some of the questions the hon. member raised in terms of party representation and how that works. Then there would still be a later process to actually look at the preferred model.

Does the member agree that this kind of public consultation would be a very important part of a process before we got to a referendum? Would the member not support the motion on that basis?

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and I do not refute the fact that there are a lot of advantages to proportional representation. Proportional representation certainly leads to more diverse representation. Members would also run cleaner campaigns, campaigns based on issues, not mudslinging. There is no doubt it would have an impact in the event that it would reduce the effects of big money.

But I think that on this motion the NDP has it backwards. I believe the commission to consult with Canadians should be set up first. As members know, we are basically in pre-election mode right now, especially with the belief that we will have a spring election in 2004. If the motion were to pass and it were to be implemented by the government, I do not see how all of this could happen.

Really, the commission planning should be presented to the House, options should be prepared and a vote held. Then we would have a better understanding. And Canadians need to have an understanding of the kind of system that we are planning on implementing.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River for his participation in the debate. I will also say that we welcome him back to the House after a serious struggle dealing with a very critical health issue. We say we are glad he is back and looking in fine form.

With respect to the Conservative position on this very important issue of proportional representation, we have heard a lot of arguments from the member about why this cannot go ahead right now. Mainly, the member has focused on a lot of technical reasons. He has mentioned the exact wording of the referendum question, the type of proposition that is on the table and the time required to get there and all the other issues on our plates.

I agree with the member that this is not the first priority of the day in terms of what is at the top of the minds of Canadians. We know that there are Canadians everywhere who are concerned about mad cow disease. The impact on the farm community and the agricultural sector is serious and devastating and has to be addressed.

We know that, as we speak, out there in the hallways there is a furor building around the scandal involving George Radwanski. We want to see that issue dealt with immediately and expeditiously.

However, the question of proportional representation gets at the heart of all those issues in terms of giving voice to Canadians in such a way that they feel their voice matters and their vote counts. What we are really asking for today is for all members to look at this as a vehicle for a more effective representative mechanism, for a way for Canadians to feel a part of the political system and to play a meaningful role.

I would like to hear from the member what he really thinks about this as a concept in terms of dealing with the critical situation in democracy today. Never mind the technical reasons: What does the Conservative Party think in terms of the failings of democracy today and how we as a Parliament can address that serious and critical situation?

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this country is looking for change. When the Liberal government first came to power, it came in with something like 37% of the votes. That does not make any sense. The governing party was elected by one-third of the country and yet two-thirds of the country voted for those of us sitting on this side of the House. In the current political environment parties are all split up, but to make it worse, because of the first past the post system, we are all sitting on this side of the House.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that there is a problem with the system. The system needs to be fixed. The first thing we would do if we formed the government would be to establish a commission which would hold public consultations on the most appropriate electoral system for Canada. In other words, we would put out some options for people to look at. The commission would be empowered to make recommendations to Parliament regarding any changes in the electoral system. If proportional representation was decided as the way to go, then that is the way we would go. Parliament, if possible, would implement changes in time for the next election.

We are in a pre-election mode right now, and are probably only eight months away from an election. To ask the government to call for a referendum on this question is unrealistic. We could support the second part of the resolution, but certainly not the first part.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Conservatives agree with the New Democratic Party that there is a problem with the electoral system of the day. Now we say to the Conservatives to get on board with this important initiative, this significant and constructive suggestion.

This motion is recommending a process by which we can hear directly from Canadians on the fundamental issue of how our electoral system is to be organized and how Parliament is prepared to deal with the shortcomings in our political system. It is having serious and long term lasting effects in terms of efficacy, citizen participation and participatory democracy.

Let me say before I forget that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

This is an historic day. As the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, this will be the first time since 1923 that Parliament will vote on a matter pertaining to changes in our electoral system and specifically in terms of a proportional representation model presented to Parliament.

It is historic and we need to remind Canadians that the vote tonight will be an important indication of how all parliamentarians feel about the growing concern and unease among Canadians about our system. Canadians feel like they do not have a meaningful say any longer in the political affairs of this land.

It is a critical day. It is a very important day and I want to congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his persistence on this issue over the years. He has diligently brought forward two private members' bills to this House since I was elected since 1977. We had a couple of debates in this place. The New Democratic Party had previously sponsored a similar opposition day motion, so this is not some fly-by-night kind of scheme. This is not, as the government House leader would suggest, some new topic up for discussion. This has long been on our political agenda. It is very much on the minds of Canadians and is at the heart of our democratic system.

I would suggest that members in the Liberal Party today consider carefully the purpose of this vote and the ramifications for what will transpire when that vote occurs. We are signalling to Canadians that we want to hear from them about changes to our political system. We want to pursue what Canadians believe is very much a part of greater participation in our political system today.

I am pleased with some of the opposition support, the support of the Bloc and the Alliance. They have joined us in recognizing the need to advance this issue to a referendum, and to have a serious discussion to study the options and to evolve our system accordingly. It is especially admirable for the Alliance and the Bloc to be supportive today because those two parties are the least to benefit from a proportional representation system. In the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections the percentage of votes received by those two parties translated into roughly the percentage of seats they received in this House.

It is a positive indication, on the part of representatives from those two parties, about the need to open up our minds to an issue that may be controversial. It may be tough, but it is critical at this time in our history.

We are at the crossroads in terms of democracy. That is why this issue is so important today. We are at a crisis in terms of the faith of the public in our system and in terms of participation at the electoral level. Let us look at the last election. Fewer Canadians voted than ever before; 61% voted in the last election. That was the lowest level ever.

In fact, if we include the one million or so Canadians who were not registered, that drops to 58%. Internationally that puts us at a rank of 26 out of 29 of OECD countries. We are at the bottom in terms of citizen participation in general elections. Surely that should be enough for all of us to say something is wrong and that we must address the situation.

There are many reasons why voter participation has dropped off. We can blame Canadians and say Canadians are failing our electoral system, which will get us nowhere because it does not get at the root causes. Or we can ask, is our political system failing Canadians? That is precisely the issue we must grapple with today and why we have the motion before us.

We know the first past the post system does not serve democracy. It does not make people feel that their votes count and does not ensure that we have a system that translates votes into seats. There does not seem to be any reasonable concurrence between the two notions. That is what the debate is all about.

We must look at this not only because we have a serious crisis in democracy in terms of low voter participation. I hope all members agree that we have increasing balkanization in this country. The Liberals ought to realize it. In the last election they got about 21% of the vote in Alberta and two seats. Similarly, the Alliance got about 23% of the vote in Ontario and two seats. Something is wrong.

That contributes to balkanization and to the sense of western alienation. It contributes to an untenable political situation that must be addressed. It has the possibility of being addressed under proportional representation.

I want to focus on the need for proportional representation to be considered in terms of the issue of equality for women in this place. I suggest that a method of proportional representation is absolutely essential for ensuring greater participation of women in this place. It would give us the possibility of achieving gender parity, a goal that we have all held so long and dear, and which must be accomplished in our day and time.

We have made progress over the years, but we have come to sort of a halt, a standstill. We achieved 20% of women in this place in 1997 which was a breakthrough. We showed some progress. Did we build on that in the year 2000? No, we stayed at 20%. That is deplorable. It is unacceptable and must be changed.

Individual parties can do what they can to correct that and the New Democratic Party has implemented affirmative action policies. It makes a difference in terms of numbers of women. We cannot wait for the day for every political party to adopt that strategy. As a parliament and as an institution we must grapple with this and recommend changes to the electoral system and the structures around the democratic process.

Proportional representation does hold that possibility. It is not the be all and end all. It does take more than simply putting in place a proportional representation system. However, it does, as all the evidence suggests, lead to greater participation by women in the political system.

I want to refer to some of the evidence presented by some researchers in this area, particularly from Nancy Peckford who did a paper for the National Association of Women and the Law. She said:

But how would any of these systems affect the representation of women, or increase the ability of women from across all parties to pursue a feminist policy agenda? It is useful to note that of the 10 countries with the highest percentage of women in Parliaments, all have systems that include PR. Of the nine countries with no women in their legislatures, seven use the majority system, one has a mixed system and the other appoints members. Reasons women fare better in PR systems include the fact that the electorate in each district is not forced to choose between a male and female candidate...Furthermore, in other PR systems, strong women's movements have been able to mobilize parties, and in some instances governments, to mandate quotas, which ensure that women are better represented on lists.

I could go on with the literature and evidence. Needless to say, from the point of view of equality and gender parity in this place, it is an absolute goal that we must achieve.

I ask all members, especially those on the Liberal side, to look at this as an opportunity to accomplish a fundamental goal and as an opportunity to reflect growing concerns among Canadians about the state of our democracy. I ask all members to give this a chance, give equality in this place a chance and give participatory democracy a chance.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her passion as usual. It is an important debate. I do not think it should be dismissed as being radical at all because there are enough examples around the world.

While I find the member's argument with regard to the goal of gender parity laudable, I would remind her and Canadians that I do not think the 90% or more of the women who are currently in the House are here because they received any special treatment. They are here because they competed on a level playing field with everyone else who wanted to be here and they are here because of their credentials.

My question has to do with the examples that have been used by some of the many countries around the world. Italy has been mentioned. I have been led to believe that with the system that Italy has, it has had 48 elections in the last 50 years. It is a very significant statistic. It means that there is some level of instability within the system that bred over time.

I would like the member specifically to address what she believes is the state of the union in Italy under a proportional representation model and why.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find the member's comments quite offensive in terms of our suggestion that proportional representation is one way to address the imbalance on the basis of sex in this place.

It is unfortunate that a member like him would stand and suggest that we are suggesting anything but a level playing field. We are suggesting that the imbalance in the system be corrected by ensuring that we make the systemic changes that allow women to gain their rightful place in the House.

PR is not a way to hand women something they do not deserve. It is not about unqualified women getting elected. It is about ensuring that those women who are qualified, who have an interest in playing a role in the life of this Parliament and who want to give their talents to life in this country have a way to do so without facing discrimination, systemic barriers or cultural conditioning.

I resent those remarks. I suggest to him that he talk to some of his colleagues on the Liberal side and get an education about what barriers women face and why we need to change the system to make equality a reality here.

The member picks Italy's system out of all the countries on the list. Italy has a mixed system. There are some questions around Italy's system. We have not come here advocating the system that Italy uses. We have advocated looking at all the models and coming up with the best model for this country.

I suggest to the member that he look at the countries of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland and a number of other countries where proportional representation is their electoral system and in fact has led to a significant representation by women to the point where they are getting close to 50:50 in their legislative assemblies: Sweden has up to 41% women represented in its legislature; Finland has 39%; Norway has 36%; Denmark has 33%, and so on.

If the member believes in equality and is prepared to treat this matter seriously I would suggest that he recognize the importance of looking at proportional representation as a means by which we can ensure that faith in democracy is restored and the goal of gender parity, of equality in this place is achieved.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the fact that 61% of Canadians voted and that we are at the bottom of the list in terms of citizen participation.

I would like the member to address the issue of relevancy of the House and how she feels that the nature of the system that we now have in place is dampening and depressing citizen participation.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in democracy is critical, as reflected in the declining voter turnout in Canada today. We have to grapple with this or we will lose our institutions that have been founded on principles of openness, freedom and democracy.

I think the best way to capture what Canadians feel about our system and why it leads to such a malaise and profound feeling of a lack of being able to affect the system is by looking at the results of the last election. I believe the Liberals won 41% of the vote but they received 57% of the seats. That is crazy. It means that we have, in effect, an electoral dictatorship because we do not have a system in place that reflects people's true intentions.

If we can correct that through our systems change, we could actually restore people's faith in democracy.