Kitchener City Hall Rotunda
200 King St. W., Kitchener
Kitchener, N2G 4G7, Canada
All five MPs in Waterloo Region are teaming up for this multi-constituency consultation. We need you to commit now to attend this most important of consultations!
We’ll show our support for the People’s Climate Plan. Organizers with the People’s Climate Plan are calling for the national climate strategy that respects climate science and Canada’s commitments in the Paris Agreement, ensures a plan to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050, and enshrines justice for all workers and Indigenous communities.
Get directions to this event ~ due to LRT construction, out of towners should try to come early in case of detours
EVERYONE needs to come to this important event.
This is a multipartisan event that is the result of collaboration of many different groups. Both Liberal and Conservative MPs will be in attendance, with GPC and likely NDP folk helping to facilitate.
As previously mentioned, two very contentious resolutions were put forward at the 2016 Green Party of Canada Convention. Even if you were unable to attend, you can watch recordings of The Real News Network’s livestream in a convenient WRGreens YouTube playlist.
For me, the choice was summed up by what Lisa Barrett said in this quotation [found in this video]:
During the resolution workshop on Saturday, a proposed amendment to the “Revoking the Charitable Status of the Jewish National Fund Canada (JNF)” resolution that would remove any mention of the JNF, making it generic was put forward, but voted down because it substantively changed the original intent of the amendment. The workshop voted to pass the original resolution and send it on to a plenary vote, where the amendment was reintroduced and pushed through. The Palestinian Self-Determination and the Movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution was indeed grounds for spirited debate, both in the workshop and the plenary.
Because both resolutions dealt with Isreal, the chief arguments against them were accusation of antisemitism. As I understand it, since they were announced there was a strong campaign to stop both resolutions. The idea that any Canadians should be prevented from even discussing human rights is reprehensible to me, personally.
What it boils down to is that sanctioning a nation that uses its power to commit human rights violations against a captive population is a defense of human rights, not an antisemitic attack. This is a human rights issue, a sphere in which Canadians used to aspire to lead the world. Foreign policy does not enter into it.
On Sunday, August 7th, at the 2016 Green Party of Canada 2016 Convention, the Green Party leader of Quebec, Alex Tyrrell reported:
“The Green Party of Canada delegates have just voted to endorse Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli government at the federal convention in Ottawa!
Congratulations to all the party members, who worked hard to advocate for human rights in the face of harsh criticism, intimidation and smear campaigns carried out by the Israel lobby.
There is no excuse, justification or reason to permit the Israeli government to continue their reign of terror against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.”
The National Post article offers a reasonably balanced view of the issue. (Although the comments below make up or it.)
The way [Green Party president, Ken] Melamed sees it, the fact the issue was being debated at all was a sign of how democratic the Green Party is. Other political parties don’t even touch topics like these, he suggested.
If grassroots within the Green Party of Canada membership want to debate something and bring it into the policy book — no matter how controversial — there’s nothing stopping them.
Unlike an actual anti-Semitic attack, this resolution is not forever, instead it will last only “until such time as Israel implements a permanent ban on further settlement construction in the OPT, and enters into good faith negotiations.”
BE IT RESOLVED that the GPC supports the use of divestment, boycott and sanctions (“BDS”) that are targeted to those sectors of Israel’s economy and society which profit from the ongoing occupation of the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] OPT;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GPC will support such a form of BDS until such time as Israel implements a permanent ban on further settlement construction in the OPT, and enters into good faith negotiations with representatives of the Palestinian people for the purpose of establishing a viable, contiguous and truly sovereign Palestinian state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GPC opposes all efforts to prohibit, punish or otherwise deter expressions of support for BDS.
While Canada does indeed need to clean our own house and really truly address our own truth and reconciliation process, that does not preclude standing up for civil rights elsewhere.
I am proud to be a member of the only major Canadian political party to stand up for social justice in Israel.
Today is Earth Overshoot day, which means that today humanity has used up the amount of resources that the planet can reliably provide us renewably for the entire year. It moves several days earlier each year; in 2015 it happened on August 13th. The official website makes a number of suggestions for ways that you can make a difference.
The idea that we can continue to demand ever more each year from a planet that isn’t getting any bigger is more than a little nuts, so maybe it’s time to stop taking the word of economists about it.
It looks to be a fabulous jam packed weekend of events. If you haven’t registered, I believe it is still possible to attend the Convention although the Regular registration rate has ended. If you go, remember to save your receipts as a portion of convention fees are eligible for federal political contribution tax-receipts.
Although I’d love to be there for the keynote speeches and the Proportional Representation workshop, perhaps the thing I will regret missing most will be the debate and the opportunity to vote on the two policy resolutions put forward by our new Shadow Cabinet Justice Critic, Dimitri Lascaris, who wrote the:
Nathan Cullen ~ NDP critic for Democratic Reform and Environment & Climate Change
Member of Parliament for Skeena-Bulkley Valley @nathancullen
Alexandre Boulerice ~ NDP
Député de Rosemont La Petite-Patrie @alexboulerice
For the ERRE Committee Meetings I’ve seen,
Daniel Blaikie has been sitting in for Alexandre Boulerice but I’m not sure if this is temporary or permanent.
Daniel Blaikie ~ NDP
Member of Parliament for Elmwood — Transcona @Daniel_Blaikie
Elizabeth May ~ Leader of Green Party,
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands @ElizabethMay
Luc Thériault ~ Bloc Québécois
Député de Montcalm et leader parlementaire du Bloc Québécois @LucTerjo1
The Committee will present its findings to the MINISTER of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef ~ Liberal
Member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha @MaryamMonsef
The Committee will also be travelling throughout Canada to meet with Canadians during the consultation period. All MPs are encouraged to hold Town Hall meetings with citizens in their respective ridings. I’ve heard the ERRE Committee will be making a Consultation stop once in Waterloo Region in the third week in August, but as yet nothing official. But should be 5 Electoral Reform Town Halls scheduled in the WRGreens Electoral Districts:
Everyone should contact their local MPs constituency office for details of these events. Because the time line is so tight, it is important these be scheduled very soon.
We have begun planning a #WRAwesome #PR4PR event to help raise awareness and answer questions about Proportional Representation for people in Waterloo Region.
Mo, David, Sam, Julia, Richard, Bob (with Laurel behind the camera)
If your MP is not making any move to hold a town hall, or if you are concerned that your MP may not support Proportional Representation, please visit our Push for Proportional Representation Action page (offline). If you are outside Waterloo Region, please feel free to use our ideas.
Even with the LRT construction, OPEN STREETS Waterloo is going ahead! And we’re glad, too, because we had a great time at our first Open Streets in June!
AND we’re expecting an even better time tomorrow in July (July 24th, 2016).
Drop by and say “hi,” sign the petition, and talk to us about Green issues, including electoral reform!
It’s going to be a hot day so dress appropriately, wear sunscreen and bring a refillable water bottle!
Every time the Electoral Reform Committee meets they are inviting the public to submit questions on Twitter at #ERRE #Q.
One way we can participate in the process is to tweet questions or comments during the committee meetings.
As individuals R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Colombia Brian Tanguay, Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University Nelson Wiseman, Director, Canadian Studies Program, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
MORNING: 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (EDT)
As individuals Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, Trinity College Dublin
(by videoconference: Dublin, Ireland) Michael Gallagher, Professor of Comparative Politics, Trinity College Dublin
(by videoconference: Dublin, Ireland)
As individual Tom Rogers, Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission (by videoconference: Canberra, Australia)
New Zealand Electoral Commission Robert Peden, Chief Electoral Officer (by videoconference: Wellington, New Zealand)
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
MORNING: 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (EDT)
As individuals Henry Milner, Senior Researcher, Chair in Electoral Studies, Université de Montréal Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council, 2002-2006 André Blais, Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
AFTERNOON2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Institute for Research on Public Policy Leslie Seidle, Research Director, Canada’s Changing Federal Community
As individuals Larry LeDuc, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto Hugo Cyr, Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal
Thursday, July 28, 2016
MORNING: 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (EDT)
As individuals
Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, York University
Jonathan Rose, Associate Professor, Department of Policital Studies, Queen’s University
And it doesn’t stop there. The first WRGreens Action Campaign is the Push for Proportional Representation. Help us work more effectively together to convince our Members of Parliament of the importance of Proportional Representation.
Our 2015 Kitchener—Conestoga candidate Bob Jonkman (who also happens to be the Fair Vote Waterloo Co-Chair) was so informative during the Electoral Reform Debate during the election, I assembled it into this 7 minute short video:
Since meaningful electoral reform is not a partisan issue, but one of fairness for voters, this information is important for all Canadians, no matter which way their politics lean, so I’ve un-branded this video to make it more universally sharable.
Help Green ideas take root & grow ~ share on social media!
Upcoming actions
Right now there are no any upcoming action campaigns planned. Check the calendar for other events coming up!
Past actions
September 17, 2016: Community dialogue for proportional representation
Summer 2016: Telephone pressure campaign
To help encourage our government to modernize the voting system so all our votes count, our first action campaign is:
Push for Proportional Representation
Action site is offline. Click the link above for more information on why we so badly need Proportional Representation. Sign up and join the Telephone pressure campaign!
In order for this to happen, we need to be sure that the Special Committee on Electoral Reform hears us, and that the Government knows Canadians really want this change. And not just the government: MPs from every political party need to hear us. This is why the Green Party has an excellent array of tools you can use to help encourage the adoption of Proportional Representation!
One of reasons New Zealand was able to replace its First Past The Post system with Mixed Member Proportional Representation was that their main stream media properly informed voters. That is not happening here. Instead, one of our biggest obstacles is that our mainstream media doesn’t really want this change because it benefits from the status quo. This is why it is so important that we understand the issue so we can help others understand it.
And because we don’t have fair representation in Parliament, we will need to be as loud as we can, both online and off.
The GPC Toolbox includes examples of the kind of letter you might send to your local newspaper. If you’re looking for additional examples, our Fair Vote Waterloo Chapter (co-chaired by our own Bob Jonkman) has been keeping track of all the letters they have had published and posted them online.
There are also tips for using social media effectively, and graphics you can use. Since I’ve been learning and writing about the importance of Proportional Representation I’ve been creating graphics you can use as well.
There are plenty of things we can do to pitch in, check them out at the GPC Toolbox
The Green Party has long supported meaningful electoral reform to Proportional Representation, and I’ll do my best to explain why here.
Any Proportional system Canada might adopt will be a huge improvement to our democratic process. This is because it will produce a Parliament that truly represents Canadians. As our Fair Vote friends are fond of saying, 39% of the votes will achieve 39% of the power.
Around the world, nobody switches to a First Past The Post system because it is not only antiquated, it doesn’t work very well. In fact, more than 85% of OECD countries use Proportional Representation, and some progressive countries have been using PR for well over a century.
But it is really hard to replace a First Past The Post electoral system, because the politicians who benefit disproportionately are generally not inclined to adopt a fairer system, because it will limit their own power to what they earn in votes. It is a credit to Mr. Trudeau’s government that they are going through the promised reform even after winning a majority government.
disproportional representation
Canada’s current electoral system results in disproportional representation. This is breathtakingly apparent when you look at the back to back “majority” governments we’ve had. The thing that hits the eye with these two election result graphs is the almost identical consecutive wins achieved by different parties. The 2011 Conservatives won a phony majority with 39% of the vote, just as the 2015 Liberals won a phony majority with 39% of the vote. This is a winner take all system, so that’s the only part of the graph that matters. But looking at the details, you can see a clear picture of the unfairness in the system.
In 2011 the Bloc Québécois won 4 seats with 6% of the vote. In 2015 the Bloc Québécois won 10 seats with only 4.7% of the vote.
I don’t know about you, but I just can’t get my mind around the idea that fewer votes can more than double a party’s seats in Parliament.
In these two elections, the Green Party outcome was consistent, winning 1 seat with approximately 3 percent of the vote.
While the Green Party’s 3-4% of the vote only won a single seat in Parliament, the Bloc’s 6% and 4.76% won four and ten seats respectively. Such crazy math in the “easy to understand” First Past The Post is one of the reasons Canadians are likely to say “I don’t understand politics.”
There is a reason for the disparity between the two small parties. While both parties suffer from the inequity in our Winner-Take-All system, the Green Party’s support is spread out across Canada but Bloc voters are concentrated in the same geographic region. With more Bloc voters in a riding, the party has a much better chance to win seats. Even so, the Bloc still gets less than half as many seats as their votes warrant.
With our single member plurality electoral system, the party that wins a majority of seats wins a disproportional amount of power. This gives the candidate (and party) with the most votes the win.
Not just any win, THE win.
For a candidate, that means s/he is the only representative — and the only voice — for the electoral district where s/he was elected. For a political party, that means a majority of seats, even though that party failed to win a majority of the votes cast. And whenever anyone talks about electoral reform, that’s pretty much what everyone looks at: how our system works for political parties.
Too often forgotten in discussions of electoral reform is how our system works — or doesn’t — for the Canadian people.
Politics isn’t a job creation program for politicians, it is supposed to provide citizens with representation in Parliament so our laws and policy reflects what citizens want and need.
Our representatives are elected in single member electoral districts: that means each district elects only a single Member of Parliament who is expected to represent everyone in the electoral district. That’s what Canadians are used to, and I (like most of us, I suspect) have long thought this is how it has to be because this is how it’s always been. And yet lately I’ve been learning Canada has used a variety of different voting methods in different parts of Canada over the years.
Although our MP can help us all equally if we bring them an administrative problem that requires cutting through bureaucratic red tape, or sometimes find a compromise on a contentious issue that will satisfy most citizens, when it comes to policy, none of us can realistically expect an MP who campaigns in favour of one issue to fight against it after they have been elected.
As you can imagine, it isn’t often we’ll hear any sitting MP talking about this problem in public; so it was pretty impressive to hear former Guelph MP, Frank Valeriote admit this publicly during his last term of office.
What ordinary people expect from democracy — what we are told to expect — is that our MP will represent us. But the reality is that one person can’t possibly represent the opposing views of a hundred thousand constituents.
This is why multi-member districts — larger electoral districts which elect multiple MPs — are a great idea. When more than one MP is elected in a district, more than one view from the district can be represented in Parliament. And after all, isn’t that the point of democracy?
Electoral Reform for Greens
How many votes does it take to get a seat in Parliament?
Small parties almost always favour Proportional Representation because small parties and independent candidates are the most disadvantaged by winner-take-all systems. The graph shows us just how badly the Green Party of Canada fared in 2015. We all know that it was even worse in 2008 when almost a million votes failed to elect any Green candidates at all. From the outside it looks as though the Green Party is doing badly… worse, in fact, than 2008. Although I haven’t done a scientific study, or even conducted a public opinion poll, I don’t believe that for a minute.
Green supporters don’t often stop thinking green thoughts or wanting a sustainable future or believing green policy. But in the face of an electoral system that makes it nearly impossible to get candidates elected, intelligent people very often switch to other parties in desperation. Although we are all very much aware of the bigger parties appropriating Green policies, we don’t often realize this is often because Green supporters bring them along.
This is not just a Canadian problem; this is a feature of the First Past the Post electoral system. If we look across the pond we can see the UK has the same problems with FPTP as we do. In some ways even worse, as it took four million votes to elect a single UKIP MP in their most recent election.
Politics is not simply a numbers game. Even though most Canadians haven’t really understood why our political system fails to work the way we think it should (by providing us with representation), most of us have known the system is badly broken for a very long time. And since the system has not been working for us, so many Canadians have fallen under the spell of strategic voting in vain hopes of gaming the system to make it work for us.
I can’t tell you how many times during the campaign that people told Bob how much they wanted to vote for him but felt they couldn’t. One of the very worst things about all this strategic voting is that because so many Canadians are not voting for who/what they want, the reality is there is no way to tell what most Canadians actually do want. It’s kind of like not having accurate census data: in the absence of fact, the government is free to do whatever it likes. Especially when a single party holds a majority. It is worse still when it’s a phony majority, as most of ours are. Since 1945 there have only been 2 majority governments a majority of Canadians voted for, and before that, only 4 Canadian “majority” governments in Canada were actually elected by more than 50% of the vote. And defenders of the status quo try to paint coalition government as undemocratic!
Proportional Representation for Canada will mean larger electoral districts which have more than a single MP, and they will almost always result in coalition governments. Far from being undemocratic, majority coalition governments are elected by an actual majority of voters!
Some people think the political parties advocating for electoral reform to Proportional Representation are doing it because it will give them an advantage. This is simply not true. Proportional Representation would most certainly improve the lot of the smaller parties, but not by giving them an unfair advantage, but by removing the unfair advantage the winning party gets under our winner-take-all system. Proportional Representation is intended to ensure the votes each candidate and/or party earns is reflected in the power they get in Parliament.
Institutional Discrimination
Small parties suffer systemic discrimination in the Canadian system. Even with sitting MPs, the Green Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois parties are not treated equally. The argument in support of this discrimination is that neither party has enough seats in the House of Commons to be counted as an official party.
But political parties are required to jump through bureaucratic government hoops to get registered by the government before any candidate is allowed to compete in an election under the party banner. Federal Registration is how a political party gets on the ballot and becomes a real party. Why isn’t a “Registered Party” an “Official Party”?
Where did this crazy idea that a party with a sitting MP is not a real party until X number of candidates have been elected come from? If there was ever any doubt about the fact “X” is a purely arbitrary construct designed to privilege the two largest parties, it was dispelled in the aftermath of the 1993 Canadian election when the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced to two seats. At that point an exception was made to allow the Progressive Conservative Party to retain the special perks of “official party” status even though it had only 2 seats. In spite of the fact the Canadian electorate had unambiguously indicated that party should no longer be so entitled.
So while the Progressive Conservative Party whose governance angered an overwhelming number of Canadians was allowed to retain its privilege, a Green Party with 2 sitting MPs was not an “Official Party,” any more than the Bloc Québécois is today with 10 sitting MPs.
But Official Party status delivers financial perks. It isn’t enough that our Winner-Take-All system gives the winning party an unfair advantage in seats, the “official parties” get extra funding for party leaders, party whips, cabinet positions, parliamentary secretaries etc. All paid for by taxpayers, including Green taxpayers — while our party is denied the funds intended to aid a party in representing its constituents. Elizabeth May is not only an Independent candidate doing a phenomenal job for her constituents in , she represents the interests of more than 600,000 voters — including those of us waaaaaay over here in Waterloo Region.
If the number of votes needed to elect a Member of Parliament was consistent, if 38,000 votes translated into one MP, as it did on average for the Liberals, the Green Party would have earned enough votes to elect 16 MPs in 2015. Which ought to be more than enough to achieve official party status even in our Winner-Take-All world. But the system we have in place is not about fairness for Canadians, it’s about keeping the real power in the hands of the two most powerful parties.
The idea that any candidate who wins an election and goes to Ottawa to sit as a Member of Parliament should be denied the same rights and respect as any other MP is not only ludicrous, it is undemocratic.
The problem is not so much that the candidate or the party is discriminated against, although that certainly isn’t fair. The real trouble is that the citizens who elected these MPs are discriminated against. Our winner-take-all system has allowed the deck to be stacked against small parties and independent candidates, but worst of all, against citizens. Seems to me all Canadian voters ought to be entitled to representation. Even in our terribly unrepresentative representative democracy, all votes should be effective because all voters should be equal.
Proportional Representation will benefit the Green Party
If the votes cast in past elections are anything to go by, Green voters are likely to benefit most from Proportional Representation. Some might suggest this is unfair, but the opposite is true. The disproportional election results we get now give the winning party an advantage it hasn’t earned at the expense of the other parties. As the Green Party is the most disadvantaged by our disproportional Winner-Take-All system, getting the seats in Parliament it deserves might look like a windfall, but the truth is the Green Party will only get the seats it has earned in votes, making it better able to represent its constituents in Parliament..
The way Green voters benefit is by actually getting the representation in Parliament we voted for.
For more information, my Whoa!Canada series is intended to demystify Proportional Representation. This is the series so far:
Today is 
But looking at the details, you can see a clear picture of the unfairness in the system.
