Electoral reform is a fair system

Dear Editor:

On Feb. 7, members of Parliament voted on a private members motion that had been introduced by NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo-Ladysmith).

Motion-86 called for a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in Canada, which would consist of people chosen from an impartial selection process to ensure the assembly’s independence and non-partisanship.

The committee would reflect the diversity of Canadians, including participation of different age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds and geographic regions.

It would then determine whether electoral reform is needed, and, if so, recommend specific measures.

The motion had the backing of Fair Vote Canada (fairvote.ca).

Although the motion had the support of the NDP, Bloc Québécois, Green Party -plus 39 Liberals, three Conservatives, and three independents -- it was defeated by a vote of 220-101, according to ourcommons.ca.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who had promised electoral reform on the campaign trail before his election in 2015, voted against the motion, as did most members of his cabinet.

After the vote, I emailed Prime Minister Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre (leader of the Official Opposition), Tracy Gray (MP Kelowna-Lake Country) and Dan Albas (Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola).

I asked each of the four: “Why did you vote against private members motion M-86?

So far, the only MP who replied was Dan Albas, who wrote, in part: “I voted against the motion as it was too vague .... the motion did not contain a reference to PR (Proportional representation) as the term ‘electoral reform’ was used...”

“Too vague”? Seriously?

In Canadian usage, the term “electoral reform” equates with Proportional representation. From thecanadianencyclopedia.ca: “Since the 1990s, electoral reform has been increasingly associated with calls for an end to the federal and provincial governments’ use of the first-past-thepost voting system in favour of one that is proportionally representative of Canadians’ political preferences.”

Proportional representation is a principle that says the percentage of seats a party has in the legislature should reflect the percentage of people who voted for that party. If a party gets 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats.

So if it had been a specific motion to implement proportional representation in time for the next federal election, would Albas have voted for that? Yeah, right!

Despite Motion-86 being defeated, it doesn’t mean electoral reform is dead, or that it couldn’t still happen before the next federal election.

David Buckna Kelowna