MP explains why he voted against electoral reform

Editor: On Wednesday, the House of Commons voted on a concurrence motion tabled by MP Nathan Cullen that asked the House of Commons to support, in its entirety, the third report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE).

It bears repeating that during the election campaign of 2015, I made a commitment to advocate for electoral reform and for a change to our current electoral system that included proportionality. It’s a commitment I took seriously and one that I kept.

I do not, however, agree with a national referendum on electoral reform, which is what the report calls for. A vote for concurrence on the ERRE report is a vote for all 13 recommendations. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I am not alone in suggesting a referendum is not the desired course of action on the journey to a proportional system.

A national referendum does not have the support of the NDP nor the Green Party. In fact, in their supplementary opinion, these parties agreed that “There is no question that more work needs to be done to increase public awareness around electoral reform” and also that “the necessity of change is overwhelming; the evidence for the necessity of holding a referendum is not.”

In a letter delivered to me on Monday at a rally outside my constituency office, Fair Vote Canada also confirmed “Fair Vote Canada does not support a referendum.”

It is also important to note that many witnesses that appeared before the committee, who advocated for proportional representation, also indicated they did not want a referendum.

Despite some of the good recommendations in the ERRE report, these recommendations cannot be concurred in, without condemning the discussion to a referendum.

As per Chapter 20, page 1075 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009, “when a motion to concur in a report is before the House, it is the concurrence in the report as a whole which the House is considering. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report.”

The NDP concurrence motion is not about advancing changes to our electoral system. It’s about driving a wedge between political parties in the House of Commons and confusing and angering Canadians in the process.

The Official Opposition supported the concurrence motion even though they were very clear they wanted nothing to do with electoral reform. That in itself should indicate what this motion was all about.

Stephen Fuhr, MP, Kelowna-Lake Country