Debates of Nov. 7th, 2023

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith on her speech and her remarks.

I am struck by the argument that women make up about 50% of Canada's population but they are under-represented here, in the House of Commons. Although we are talking about the electoral system, I am sure that a lot of other factors play a part in the fact that women may be less interested in politics. It may be the way that we practice politics. Perhaps we should dig a little deeper, specifically to try to attract people who better represent the demographic landscape of Canada and Quebec.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks on this matter, because I am not sure that reforming the voting system alone is enough to ensure that more women or under-represented groups will end up here, in the House of Commons.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, there is a lot of work that needs to happen in order to increase the number of women represented in the House of Commons. Electoral reform is one piece of that bigger parcel of solutions that need to be implemented. I am working on other components as well but, ultimately, if we look at strengthening our democracy, we will see increased gender parity and increased representation from all those who are in our communities.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on Motion No. 86, which would create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. I am one of the 20 members who has seconded this motion. I would note that members of all parties, with the exception of the Bloc, have seconded it. I want to commend the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for putting this forward, as well as the member for Kitchener Centre, who put forward a motion that was nearly identical to this previously. In fact, more than three-quarters of Canadians support having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Importantly, 69% of the voters of every single party in Canada, any party, support this type of measure.

What is a citizens' assembly? It is a non-partisan, independent and trusted group of citizens who are selected at random. It is a group of Canadians who are broadly representative of the diversity of the population, who are given the opportunity to learn from experts on a particular topic, thoughtfully consider the options, and issue and make recommendations based on their work. This motion would task creating a citizens' assembly to review our electoral system; to investigate how it could be improved, if it could be improved at all; and then to make recommendations based on their work.

On an issue that is as fundamental as how we constitute who represents us and who gets to govern our country, it is essential that this process be free from politics and any partisan influence and interests. Political parties will be biased in any recommendation they offer. Parties such as the Conservatives, which have shown that they cannot work with other parties, will want to keep the first-past-the-post system so that they can shoot for a majority and impose their minority will on Canadians. Big tent parties such as the Liberal Party would seek some sort of a ranked ballot, so parties that appeal broadly get rewarded. Single-issue parties such as the Greens will want proportional representation, so a smaller vote share in many ridings across the country will lead to their having greater representation. We know that the NDP is in favour of mixed member proportionality, where it would be able to leverage some single-issue, single-stakeholder matters, as well as taking advantage of some regional strengths. Of course, the Bloc would likely prefer to keep the system as it is right now, as they have much greater representation than their vote share at this point.

Quite frankly, that is why none of us here are trustworthy on this matter. We would all be blindly self-interested in choosing a system that would work best for our given party. Even after a system is chosen by a citizens' assembly, it is absolutely critical that the public have the opportunity to vote for or against it in a referendum. Just as democracies have the right to vote for who represents us, we especially should have the right to vote for or against any system that would completely change this process. Otherwise, the system will not be seen to have any legitimacy. Therefore, I suggest that this be included in this motion; perhaps it can be included if this motion gets debated at committee.

Like the member who proposed this motion, I am a British Columbian who has experienced what a citizens' assembly can look like. The province launched a citizens' assembly in response to a provincial NDP victory in the 1996 election, where the NDP formed government but only had a minority of the vote, at under 40%. In the subsequent election, the B.C. Liberals ended up winning a huge majority based on the first-past-the-post system; however, to their credit, they proceeded with moving forward on a citizens' assembly for electoral reform in 2004, despite having gotten that huge majority. I think there is much that we could learn from this process. Unfortunately, there was a citizens' assembly on electoral reform that chose a system, but when they put it to a referendum, they chose a threshold of 60% to reach, before any change could be made.

In this referendum, 57% ended up voting in favour of choosing single transferable votes as the new system for British Columbia, which is very significant, given that this was not a system that many Canadians or many British Columbians knew at that time.

We see similar examples at the federal level in Canada, where majority governments are delivered with about 40% of the vote. This is especially the case when we see poor voter turnout. This leaves much of the country feeling disenfranchised. It has contributed to dramatic policy shifts that we see in our country, which cause vast uncertainty and impede progress on some critical things, like on climate change. It also brings in some political risk that actually impedes business investment.

I think we can do better than this with our democracy. In fact, we must do everything we can to revitalize democracy in this country. As we see, it is under threat from foreign interference, from disinformation both foreign and domestic and also from the tactics of the Conservatives who are seen to make democracy look so ugly that people lose confidence, stay home and do not vote.

I want to recognize the work of so many advocates on this matter. In fact, I hear from my constituents frequently about electoral reform. As my constituent Eric tells me, the current voting system is “pushing people away from participating in elections. It's very unhealthy for our democracy and, I dare say, even dangerous in this day and age of disinformation.”

Theodora says, “We need this advanced so that all people and their ideas are well included and given respect for their ideas and new beneficial approaches.”

That is why many Canadians, including so many I have met in my riding, were swayed by the promise made in 2015, that it would be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system.

In fact, I participated in a consultation that was coordinated by the current Minister of Health, who, at the time, was the parliamentary secretary for democratic reform. I remember the consultation being robust and it definitely touched on the different positives and negatives of different political systems. I thought it was very well done.

While the government of the day made some very important advances in improving our democracy, particularly with delivering an independent Senate, I was disappointed that the decision to pursue electoral reform was not followed through because there was not consensus at the time.

I do believe that the system was, in fact, doomed to failure from the beginning. Frankly, we should be grateful that the decision to move ahead with a system like ranked ballot was not chosen by the government and instituted before the next election. It would not have allowed for an unbiased decision and it would not have given the choice for people to choose one political system or another for elections. I believe that campaign promise was actually the wrong one.

It is not just me. The Prime Minister, in a question and answer period in my riding earlier this year, said that not acting on electoral reform was one of the things that he regretted most.

This represents an opportunity to change that. My hope is that this motion will pass and that a citizens' assembly would be launched as soon as possible. Frankly, it would not likely be able to be launched before the spring of next year. I would like to see a citizens' assembly be formed and for it to have a mandate to undertake a study and deliver it by early 2025.

Assuming that there is an election in September 2025, it would be possible to align the election vote with the referendum vote on any change that is recommended by such a body, to change the electoral system.

That way, with regard to the 2025 electoral votes, parties would have the opportunity to decide whether they commit to change the electoral system for the following election.

I believe that setting it up in this timeline would allow enough time for Canadians to learn about the changes that are proposed. The government should also provide resources for third parties to educate Canadians about the chosen system so that they are properly informed.

Importantly, I believe that a referendum on any change that is proposed should be set at a threshold of 50% plus one vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Motion No. 86. Knowing the sincerity and good will with which this motion was put forward by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, it pains me to have to vote against it. I will devote my remarks to explaining the reasons why I will be doing so.

Motion No. 86 proposes to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. A citizens' assembly is an ad hoc assembly of people selected by lottery from the general population, much as a jury is selected. Its ephemeral nature, in that it is called together to deal with a single matter and then disperses, is also similar to a jury. The purpose of this citizens' assembly, as the text of the motion explains, is to, “Determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.”

This proposal is half right, but it is also half wrong. Specifically, I agree that a citizens' assembly can play a useful role in designing what Motion No. 86 refers to as “specific measures”. More precisely, a citizens' assembly can engage in the detailed design of one or more electoral systems, which could then be offered as alternatives to Canada's status quo first-past-the-post electoral system.

However, I disagree with the motion in that I believe it is not appropriate to ask a citizens' assembly to “determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada”. Canadians, themselves, should make this determination, and they should do so via referendum.

I would have been much happier if the motion had explicitly stated that the role of a citizens' assembly is to propose one or more alternative electoral systems for Canadians to vote on in a referendum. Citizens' assemblies have been used twice in Canada for the purpose of designing electoral systems: once in British Columbia in 2004 and once in Ontario in 2006. On both occasions, the resulting proposal was submitted to the voters for final approval in referendums.

However, Motion No. 86 does not contain any reference to a referendum, and given how the NDP strenuously objected to any referendum when electoral reform was being seriously considered back in 2016, I worry that, if I were to vote in favour of Motion No. 86, I would subsequently be told that I had approved a process under which the citizens' assembly would determine the outcome, as opposed to merely proposing potential outcomes.

As well, it would be unhelpful to have a citizens' assembly that provides merely a general outline of the electoral systems it is proposing, as appears to be advocated here, with the expectation that parliamentarians would then fill in the details later on.

We all know the old saying that the devil is in the details, and by necessity, any proportional or preferential electoral system contains enough details to hide a considerable amount of devilry, which could have the effect of producing an electoral outcome very different from what the voters had thought they were buying into.

There is no need to repeat, in this anticipated future process, a version of what happened in the 2015 election, when voters naively supported an electoral promise by the current Prime Minister, the then leader of an opposition party, that the election then under way would be the last to be held under the first-past-the-post system, only to learn, after it was too late to retract their votes, that the only alternative to the status quo that the new Prime Minister was willing to consider was a preferential ballot, a system which would, very predictably, have greatly enhanced the electoral success of a centrist party such as the Liberals.

This kind of bait and switch could be carried out, although admittedly at a less Wagnerian level, with the details of an assembly-approved proposal being proffered without spelling out the details, an option such as multi-member proportionality.

To get the idea of just how much variation there can be within the umbrella term “multi-member proportionality”, I invite colleagues to peruse pages 84 to 94 of the report of the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, which provide details of some of the potential variations under that rubric that could produce meaningfully different implications.

To be clear, it would not be the members of the citizens' assembly who would engage in this sleight of hand. It would be us, the politicians, sorting out the details after the assembly has done its work. The only solution is to leave no drafting work to be done by the politicians after the approval process. My view is that a citizens' assembly could make a useful contribution if it is utilized at an early stage of a consultation process that culminates in a referendum.

The citizens' assembly should take place at a stage that is roughly analogous to the committee stage in the normal parliamentary legislative process. It is at this point in the process that the assembly could engage in the detailed work of designing alternatives to the status quo or in reviewing and approving designs prepared by subject matter experts.

As an ad hoc body whose membership is composed of non-politicians who have no partisan interest to defend, the citizens' assembly is likely to put forward models for potential approval that will transparently not contain hidden elements that benefit this political party or that political party. However, it is the referendum itself that is the essential backstop preventing any attempts at manipulation from ultimately succeeding. It is not enough to rely upon the citizens' assembly alone, and it would be perverse to regard the work of the assembly as being so morally prescriptive as to require Parliament to simply enact that which has been determined by the assembly. Only a referendum can give this kind of moral weight.

There are several ways of conducting such a referendum. Based on the history of the past 20 years, it would seem that a referendum structured as a preferential ballot, in which voters rank the various options designed by a citizens' assembly, is the likeliest to produce a mandate for changing away from first past the post. However, such a result will not be legitimate unless first past the post is one of the options on that referendum ballot. This was the process used in Prince Edward Island for a referendum that took place in 2019. P.E.I.'s 2019 referendum was one of seven referenda on the subject of electoral reform that have taken place in this country over the past two decades, with a mixed record of success.

It might be helpful for me to devote my remaining time to running through the results of all of these referenda.

In British Columbia, voters have cast ballots in three referenda on whether or not to adopt a new electoral system. The first of B.C.'s three referenda took place in 2005, and 57.6% of participating voters supported the adoption of an electoral system known as single transferrable vote, or STV. The STV model had been designed a year prior to the referendum by an ad hoc group known as the B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. I suspect that the 2004 B.C. Citizens' Assembly is probably the inspiration for the one proposed in the motion we are debating today.

However, the new electoral system was not adopted into law in consequence of a provision in the province's electoral law requiring any referendum measure to win a supermajority of at least 60% in order to be adopted. Therefore, to deal with this troubling result, a second referendum was held in 2009 on the very same STV electoral system versus the status quo, but this time only 39% of voters supported the single transferrable vote system. There was a very similar voter turnout in both referenda, 2.8 million votes in the first versus 2.9 million cast in the second, so the only possible explanation for this change is that over the course of four years, voters had cooled to this option.

In 2018, a third referendum was held. This time, there were two questions on the ballot. First, voters were given a choice between changing to a new electoral system or sticking with the status quo, and second, voters were asked to rank three alternative electoral systems. This two-question structure was designed to ensure that in the event of a vote in favour of change, even voters who supported the status quo would have an equal voice in choosing the new system. It was anticipated by many observers, me included, that a two-question ballot would result in a higher percentage of voters feeling comfortable with changing to the new system and therefore voting yes to change. However, the opposite happened and less than 39% of voters voted for change.

In P.E.I., voters have cast ballots in three referenda on adopting a new electoral system. The first of these referenda, held in 2005, showed change being firmly rejected. Only 36% of participating voters endorsed the alternative proposal. Provincial leaders concluded from this experience that in any simple head-to-head popularity contest between the status quo and any particular alternative, the new alternative is at a disadvantage because advocates of different new alternatives, who might not much care for the status quo, will nonetheless vote for it in the hope that in a later contest, they will be able to get their own preferred system set in place.

A second referendum was held in 2016, with voters being asked to rank four options, including the status quo and three alternatives. The result would indicate this worked out very well for the designers of the referendum, as 52.4% of participating voters endorsed a new system. However, this did not lead to P.E.I.'s system changing, because only 37% of voters actually cast ballots, which cast legitimacy on this very small majority. P.E.I. normally has a very high voter turnout, around 80%, so the premier decided it would make sense to have another referendum. This was done and it produced a much lower result, with just under half of voters endorsing a new system.

There was also a referendum in Ontario in 2007. This followed a convention of the sort discussed in this motion, but it nonetheless failed, which means there is no guarantee of success just because we tried to use a citizens' assembly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud Motion No. 86, moved by our NDP colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

It is an interesting motion. This is not the first time that proposals to reform the electoral system have appeared on the political landscape, whether at the provincial government level, in Quebec, or here in the House of Commons. We rarely see these reform projects accomplish anything, and the reason is simple. It requires a little something that is often lacking in politics: courage.

It is clear that our electoral system inevitably favours the party that wins the election. Consequently, the party that wins an election thanks to this system is unlikely to announce that it will immediately change the system for the better, switching to a formula that may put it at a disadvantage in future elections. We saw a bit of that in 2015 when the Liberals came to power, saying that the country had just seen the last election with this first-past-the-post voting system and that they were going to reform it. The government held consultations and received a report afterwards. It did not take long for the government to install a brand new shelf to toss the report on and forget about it.

I find it very interesting that this is being proposed today, and that we have the opportunity to debate it. I hope that members will have a little more courage this time and that we will heed this call. Many groups and communities in Quebec and Canada have been calling for this for one very simple reason: Many citizens, many voters, do not feel properly represented. That is true. As the mover of the motion pointed out earlier, only 30% of those elected to the House of Commons are women, even though we know that the proportion of women in Canada's population is much higher than that, probably around 50%. There are reasons for this. Obviously, this is not just about the voting system.

As long as we are opening up the debate and studying the issue, we must also ask ourselves some other questions. We have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves how we are engaging in politics. Is our system still suited to life in 2023, 2024, 2030 and beyond? Perhaps we could look at how debates are conducted. Perhaps we could examine whether time is being used effectively in the House of Commons. I fully support having a citizens' assembly to review the electoral system, but at the same time, let us have a citizens' assembly to hold consultations on how we should engage in politics.

I will give the example of young people. It is nothing new that young people are not interested in politics, but they are getting less and less interested and that is no small thing. We must be doing something wrong. There must be something we could do better to ensure that young people are better represented in politics at every level. A citizen's assembly that would look at the issue and focus on listening and coming up with solutions would certainly be beneficial. This would be a way of making politics more interesting and attractive to groups of people who are currently not interested because they do not relate to or are concerned about the debates being held and because these debates are not properly communicated to them. This breeds cynicism and we all end up paying the price, because in a democracy there is nothing worse than cynicism.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of Motion No. 86. It may not be perfect, but it will start a debate, a discussion, that I think will be highly beneficial. Of course, as soon as the consultation ends and the report is presented in the House, we must not rush to put this report on the shelf right beside the one produced in 2016. We would be making the same mistake twice. It would be a terrible shame to repeat this mistake time and time again simply because we lack the courage to undertake a major reform of our existing system.

A while ago I was talking about young people's disengagement from politics. That bothers me, and I am sure it bothers every one of my colleagues in the House. In fact, when we meet with young people in our ridings, we see something different; we see that they are interested in politics. They are interested in all kinds of issues, like social inequality, the environment, the homelessness crisis, the current housing crisis and problems related to our health care systems.

Young people are wondering what kind of society we are leaving for them. They say they are going to be stuck with a great big mess when it is time for them to take the reins, and they are absolutely right. They take a stand and often make their voices heard at demonstrations. When I meet these young people and hear their comments and concerns, I tell them straightaway that they are being political. They are taking a political stance. They tell me that no matter how much they complain and want to change things, the current political system means that things will not change. They really feel that the system will not do anything to help them fulfill their dreams or implement the changes they would like to see in society for their own future.

This idea of holding consultations to ask people how they see things and how we can get them interested in getting more involved so that there will one day be better representation of all the different communities here in the House of Commons, as well as in other legislatures across Canada and Quebec, is a golden opportunity. I am very hopeful that some of the things in the motion will come to fruition once we get to the committee stage.

Earlier, during the speech of my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a riding whose name I love to say, I believe I heard him say that the Liberals are going to support Motion No. 86. I am happy about that because it shows that we are going to end up in committee discussing, debating and improving it. There are certainly a number of things that will need to be clarified. I am very happy to see that, again, we are acknowledging that the participation of the first nations will be necessary during this consultation. However, I think we will need to take into account the characteristics of Quebec. Not every voting system will ensure that Quebec's specificity is protected and will allow Quebec to be well represented in a model like the ones that might be proposed.

These are things we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss in committee. I am confident that common sense will prevail and that, when all is said and done, we will end up with a process that benefits democracy. Let us hope so. Maybe I am a bit of an idealist or over-optimistic. I get called out on that sometimes. I may have a natural inclination to see the world through rose-coloured glasses, but I think this process could really generate more public interest in what we do here. I sincerely hope so.

I hope that this motion will be adopted. I am confident that it will. Once the recommendations have been presented following the consultations, I hope that the government in power at the time will have the courage to implement them. I hope that this common-sense initiative will see the light of day thanks to the courage of the politicians who are in the House of Commons on that day.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying a big thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Electoral reform is an important issue in Canada and it is important we keep it an issue on Parliament Hill. By choosing to move ahead with this motion, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has caused us to be talking about it on the floor of the House and brought it to the attention of all members.

That is something the Prime Minister was hoping would not happen after he crassly broke his promise after throwing out a great set of recommendations by a special committee on parliamentary reform that was set up, notwithstanding the fact it was a majority government at that time, on a proportional basis. Opposition parties at that time came together in a way the government frankly did not expect and did find a path forward for electoral reform, one the government quickly threw in the bin.

I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have made elsewhere on the record and the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith eloquently made today about the nature of representation in Parliament, which is surely a very important argument. She presented some facts and figures about the ways that Canadians are not adequately represented, whether it is women or different racial minorities in Canada. People living with disabilities are not adequately represented in the chamber. She also talked about some of the disillusionment with politics that is occurring and a sense by people that their vote does not really count, or that they have to vote against what they do not want instead of voting for what they do want.

Those are all themes that, as people who knock on doors and talk to people about political engagement, we are very aware of. It is not a limited phenomenon in Canada. It is one of the reasons voter engagement is going down in Canada instead of up, as people feel more alienated from the system. Surely, the Prime Minister breaking what was a very clear promise in the 2015 election was an important moment for many Canadians, and unfortunately, not a positive one. It was not one that drew people to politics. It was not one that caused people to feel that when politicians make promises and rally behind them there is the promised outcome on the other end of that.

That is why it is important now to put the emphasis on a citizens' assembly, because there is a fair amount of broken trust, a trust the Prime Minister himself is responsible for having broken. It was not just once, though. It was not just after the 2015 election and the subsequent report by the special committee and the crass kind of dismissal of that report. He did it again recently after Liberal Party members passed a resolution at their own convention calling for an examination of the electoral process and a move away from the first-past-the-post system.

The Prime Minister came out the very next day to talk about this. The convention was not even over and he was already talking about how that would not proceed and there was no consensus. It is very easy to stand up and say there is no consensus when one is the person who is getting in the way of there being a consensus.

Opposition parties, in the 42nd Parliament, showed that even between parties as disparate and which disagree even on the matter of electoral reform to the extent Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats and Greens sometimes do disagree on these matters, and if we each were able to pick our ideal system it probably would not be the same system, we nevertheless worked together to form a majority consensus on that committee.

Opposition parties in Canada showed very clearly where there is a will there is a way. The person who has been standing in the way of that consensus, and the only reason there is not a consensus on how to move forward, is the Prime Minister. He has refused to accept the consensus other parties have shown that they are able to come to in order to move forward on this most important issue.

Why is it that the Prime Minister says there should be no consensus? Why is it he does not agree? It is because he says that proportional representation is divisive. Let us take a look at what the first-past-the-post system has created in this place. Is it a place of unity? Is it a place of respectful discourse? No, it is a place of incredible division, where we are routinely saturated with misrepresentations like, for instance, that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition.

There is a supply and confidence agreement. It is published online. Anyone who wants the details of that can go online; it is a fully transparent document. We have shown time and time again, whether it is on a public inquiry on foreign interference or just recently on the Conservatives' own carbon tax motion, we are prepared to disagree with the government and not support it on important issues of the day. Why? It is because we are not the government. We are not a part of that government.

We are willing to work with the government on issues like dental care and increasing funding for housing, and a number of other things that are in the supply and confidence agreement, which Canadians right now who are watching can google and read online. That much is true.

Do the Conservatives say in French that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition? Not any more, because it does not suit their political interests. Instead, they say that there is a Liberal-Bloc coalition.

When members are speaking English, they often call it an NDP-Liberal coalition. When they are speaking French, they call it a Bloc-Liberal coalition. Which is it? It has to be one or the other if we are talking about a government made up of two political parties.

However, the truth is that it is neither. The Bloc is not in a coalition with the government, and we are not in a coalition with the government. We just voted with the Conservatives again on an important issue of the day: expanding the pause on the carbon tax to avoid regional division within the carbon pricing system. Is that a Conservative-NDP coalition? It is not, but I suppose we could call it that.

Thus, there is a Liberal-NDP coalition and there is a Conservative-NDP coalition. There is a Bloc-Liberal coalition, and I have seen the Bloc vote with the Conservatives; surely that is a coalition, so I guess there is a Conservative-Bloc coalition. I watched, on an important matter of democracy that had to do with abuses of confidences and prorogation in the House, the Liberals and Conservatives stand up together to maintain the power of the Prime Minister to shut this place down. That was a Liberal-Conservative coalition, I guess. We just call it a coalition any time parties happen to agree on any issue. When I voted in Parliament with the Conservatives on Bill C-2 to disallow the wage subsidy to companies that were paying dividends, perhaps that was a coalition. When I worked with the member for Sarnia—Lambton on important pension reform, and the Bloc was part of that, I suppose that was a coalition. Who is running the country? It depends I guess what vote one decides to use to evaluate who is running the country.

My point in all of this is that the first-past-the-post system sure as heck has not created a more unified body politic. It has not stopped division; in fact, it has encouraged it, because of what motivates the dishonest portrayal of the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and Liberals, or sometimes the Bloc and the Liberals, as I said, if one is speaking in French. It depends on the day. The Conservative leader, of course, is not who he says he is. He is one guy in French and another guy in English. Never mind; there are other examples but I will not go on, because I want to bring it back to the motion.

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are misrepresenting the truth on any day of the week, because they are chasing 40% of the vote. It is because we have an electoral system in this country where one can fight tooth and nail, and not to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Canadians, but just to get 40% or even 39% of the vote of Canadians. These are Canadians who, despite being disgusted with the state of political discourse, still show up to vote. However, if one can get 39% of those votes, and if one can use dishonesty and other misrepresentation to drive well-meaning Canadians away from polling stations, then one can get 100% of the power with just 39% of the votes.

The culprit in all of this is the Prime Minister, who refuses to accept that our voting system encourages division. It is simply untrue to say that a proportional system would sow more division and discontent than we see in our current system. We could not pack more into an electoral system in terms of division and nasty politics than we are seeing in Canadian politics today. Yes, the Conservative leader is responsible for his fair share of that, but the motion before us is one of the things that we could do structurally in order to encourage better behaviour and more collaboration between parties despite the fact that they disagree. I am proud of the fact that New Democrats have been modelling collaboration with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, depending on the issue. We want a system that encourages that, rather than one that encourages the opposite.

I think we have a lot of evidence to say that preserving the current voting system is not standing up against divisive, nasty politics. In Canada today, it is precisely the opposite, which is why we should support the motion from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, over the last eight years, the Prime Minister told Canadians that if they just paid the costly carbon tax, the NDP-Liberal government would meet their environmental targets. Today, the environment commissioner revealed that, despite the punishing carbon tax, the Liberals will fail to achieve their own emission targets. After eight years under the Prime Minister, it is all pain and no gain. If the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay their costly carbon tax, Canadians should know how many emissions it will reduce.

My question is simple: How many emissions have been directly reduced from the carbon tax? I just want the number.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, although I reject the premise. Climate change is real, and it is having really devastating impacts in Canada. Again this year, communities across our country were severely impacted by catastrophic storms, wildfires and floods. In fact, 2023 has indeed been the hottest year on record.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Regardless of how loudly the Conservatives would like to yell at me, climate change is indeed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that these are the late shows, so there is only an opportunity to speak by the person raising the question and the member of the government who is actually going to respond. I would ask members to be respectful and not interrupt.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, 2023 saw the worst wildfire season on Canadian record. It was also the hottest and driest year ever on record, leading to hundreds of thousands of Canadians being evacuated from their homes. It is our firm belief that decisive actions need to be taken in order to mitigate these impacts and better protect our environment and communities for generations to come.

In the face of that, the Conservatives still stand in the House every day and refuse to even acknowledge the human contributions of climate change. Their only contribution to this conversation is that they think we should get rid of carbon pricing in this country. Fortunately, that remains an efficient way to combat climate change, and pollution pricing is, in fact, working. Contrary to what the hon. member said, Canada's emissions have dropped by 6% since 2005. Now, they often also say that we have missed every target. However, the first target is in 2030, and we are on the path to reach that target. We need to move faster, in fact, to meet it.

I know one thing for sure: If we stop pricing carbon, if we stop pricing pollution, if we do not put a cap on oil and gas emissions, then there is no chance we will reach those targets.

Our system encourages innovation, reduces emissions and promotes greener behaviour. What is more, it gives Canadian households flexibility. It gives businesses opportunities to decide how and when they want to make those changes.

Another thing that the Conservatives always avoid talking about is our rebate program. I would encourage anybody watching to look at their bank account statements from October 13; if they are in a province whose premier does not have a plan to fight climate change, then they will be subject to the federal backstop program. On October 13, they would have received one of their quarterly payments for the climate action incentive program.

Experts agree that this form of carbon pricing is the best way to get results and lower our emissions. Since 2005, despite 10 years of Harper's inaction on climate change and even refusal to accept that it existed or admit that human activity was causing it, we have seen a 6% reduction in our emissions. That has largely been since 2015.

I would like to continue to remind the opposition that our pollution pricing system is providing more money back to the majority of households than it costs them. With the pollution pricing rebates in provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can now receive payments of up to $1,500 a year under our plan.

When it comes to our government's decision to temporarily pause the carbon price on deliveries of home heating oil, we did that because it is the most expensive form of home heating. We want to make sure that we are working with those families to get them off home heating oil and on to a heat pump, which is an efficient electric way of heating one's home. It reduces emissions. However, for the 1.3 million households across the country that rely on home heating oil, it is also extremely costly.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals did not answer my question. The question is very simple, so I will ask it again.

How many emissions have been directly reduced exclusively from the carbon tax, just a number?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we go. Conservatives are pretending as if a carbon tax is going to stop a hurricane in its tracks. That is the type of rhetoric we hear from these Conservatives: How many hurricanes has this carbon tax reduced; how many emissions; how many tonnes of carbon has the tax removed from the environment? Obviously, the members opposite are unwilling to do a bit of reading to inform themselves or look up a climatologist or economist who works on these types of things.

Economists around the world are unanimous that if we want to fight climate change we have to price carbon. We have to put a price on pollution to reduce our emissions.

I will say again very clearly, because the member opposite was looking for a number, that it is 6%. The goal is between 35% and 40%, so we have a lot more work to do. We have to reduce those emissions and we have seven years to do.

I know one thing for sure, laughing about it and pretending it does not exist—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, after eight years, this tired NDP-Liberal government has become increasingly desperate. The Prime Minister has come to resemble one of those wacky, waving, inflatable tube guys outside car dealerships. His hands flail about as the political winds push him around randomly.

Year after year, the Prime Minister has claimed that if he did not punish low-income Canadians with higher energy prices, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. In reality, his regressive carbon tax has become a meteor headed for the Liberal Party. That is the only reasonable explanation Canadians can take away from the decision to cut the carbon tax on home heating oil. He only cares about the survival of the Liberal Party.

Canadians can see through the Liberal talking points and simplistic slogans. They know the Prime Minister is being inauthentic when he talks about affordability. Even the Liberals know it. Why else would the former parliamentary secretary provide fake numbers to this House about the cost of the Prime Minister's third family vacation in a year?

What is even more remarkable is that the Liberals knew what the impact of bringing in the carbon tax and carbon tax 2 would mean for Canadians struggling to put food on the table. They knew it and they did it anyhow. These Liberal ministers knew it would hurt Atlantic Canadians. They spelled it out in black and white. I know because I quoted it back to them.

This is what I said during an adjournment debate one year ago

The Liberals' new fuel standards regulations clearly state that the cost will be borne disproportionately by rural Atlantic Canadians, yet Liberals claim that nobody uses home heating oil any more. The Liberals are clearly gaslighting Atlantic Canadians, then charging them a carbon tax on that same gas.

Before any of the Liberals get up to spread more misinformation, I challenge them to read their own regulatory analysis. This is not Conservatives saying it, and it is not the Parliamentary Budget Officer. These are the Liberal government's own words. It said:

It is estimated that provinces in Atlantic Canada would be more negatively affected by the proposed Regulations. This is largely because the Atlantic Provinces use more [light fuel oil] for home heating than other provinces.

It later said:

This may be most acute for seniors living in the Atlantic provinces, where they account for a higher share of the total population compared to other Canadian provinces and are also more likely to experience some of the highest energy expenditures in Canada proportional to income.

The NDP-Liberal government knew the second carbon tax would hammer Atlantic Canada. The radical socialist environment minister knew his policy would hurt seniors on fixed incomes. He knew his policy would hurt lower-income Canadians. He knew it and he did it anyway. What did he do when the price of energy shot up in Atlantic Canada this summer? He claimed that this was all the fault of the companies and not his carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. It is another example of Liberal gaslighting, except this time it was the Liberal caucus who were taken for a ride.

The environment minister has known for years that his energy regulations would hammer Atlantic Canadians. He knew the costs would be passed onto consumers. He knew it and he pushed them through anyhow.

The socialist environment minister has devoted his entire life to putting his radical vision for the environment ahead of people. At least he is honest about it. What excuse do the Liberal caucus and the parliamentary secretary have for adopting this regressive policy?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the only MP who voted against the Paris Agreement. She always has more climate denial and conspiracy theories in this House than I can handle.

I would remind the members opposite that they all ran on a similar plan in 2021 to price carbon. In fact, the Tories reprimanded the member of the Conservative caucus over her comments on climate change. The Conservative Party told the media that the member was told to take down videos from her YouTube channel that were spouting those conspiracy theories—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask her question. She is going to have an opportunity to respond. I would ask her to wait until then.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member continues to yell that it is a big conspiracy and it is censorship to tell her to take those videos down. I did not tell her to take those videos down. The Conservative Party told her to take her videos down because they were full of nonsense, misinformation and conspiracy theories about climate lockdowns and about governments that were going to put into place certain restrictions, like those imposed by COVID-19.

It is like the member gets all of her news from the National Enquirer and brings it into this House to spread misinformation and disinformation throughout her riding. It is extremely disappointing. However, this is not the first time we have heard blatant climate denial from the member. I hope for the sake of her caucus that they ask her, as they did in 2021, when they all ran on a plan to price carbon, to maybe tone the rhetoric, conspiracy theories and climate denial a bit, because as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has stated, no party without a viable climate plan to reduce emissions is ever going to get elected. I could not agree more.

Like the member opposite, a lot of my community members use home heating oil in order to heat their homes. It is akin to using coal. These products were used in the 1800s to heat homes, and we can do a lot better in 2023. Rural Ontarians will hopefully get a deal from Premier Ford whereby we can help subsidize their home heating through a heat pump, which is an efficient way to heat a home. It is an effective way to heat a home. It also drastically reduces emissions.

The members opposite continue to yell at me that I do not work in the cold, but it is not true. It gets cold where I live, and I use a heat pump that works just fine. There are also cold-adjusted ones that use a mix of various technologies, which I would say is the only word the Conservatives have used to describe their climate policy. They say they are just going to use technology to drive down all emissions, and they are going to meet some fictitious target with the kind of technology we have invested in, like carbon capture, use and storage.

The Conservatives do not have a plan to fight climate change. They have absolutely no leadership in their party. They have stopped talking about climate change altogether, and it is really disappointing.

As to affordability, the vast majority of those living in provinces like Ontario, where the member and I are both from, who go about their lives and pay the price on pollution receive a rebate. I would encourage anybody who is curious about that rebate to check their bank statement from October 13. They will see one of their four quarterly amounts, with up to $244 for a family of four, which is $946, if my math is correct. That is part of the rebate program.

The Conservatives will never talk about it, because they do not want to accept that our program, which is a consumer-based revenue-neutral program, is better than theirs. If members recall, in their 2021 election platform, they had some sort of Zellers-style catalogue, and people could choose something from it, like a bike or another green product. That would not work and that is why they did not win that election. As the member for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, none of my YouTube videos were taken down. That is more misinformation from the Liberals.

After eight years, Canadians know the truth. Higher prices are the official government policy for the NDP-Liberal government. The goal of the carbon tax is to make energy unaffordable.

The environment minister says they have to make energy more expensive so they can reach net zero by 2050. It is the same minister who says that we need a mandatory target of cutting 30% of nitrogen emissions from fertilizer by 2030. It is the same minister who worked with the Communists to control China by setting a land grab target of 30% by 2030. It is the same minister who set an electric vehicle sales target of 30% by 2030.

He wants energy to be more expensive. He wants food to be more expensive. He wants land to be more expensive. He wants cars to be more expensive. The Prime Minister who appointed the Liberal minister is just not worth the cost.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this denial is beyond just climate change denial. The member was indeed instructed to take videos off of her YouTube feed, and she did take those videos down. There was one, a particularly disgusting video the member put up, that included an image of the Prime Minister with a noose around his neck.

The member opposite can continue to yell and bring into the House news that is not even fit for the National Enquirer. It is a challenge that we all have to face in this place, that some people are elected on the basis of their misinformation, disinformation and tabloid-style campaigns.

I was heartened to see that Erin O'Toole, in the last election campaign, told his Conservative caucus that, if they do not get on board with fighting climate change, they are not welcome in their caucus. I guess they showed him because, as soon as they did not get elected, they showed somebody who is willing to talk about climate change the door.