Do you support pharmacare for Canada?
If you do, you stand with 88 per cent of Canadians. Transferring this into the House of Commons, Bill C-213, An Act to enact the Canada Pharmacare Act, should have passed with 297 votes. While the government declares pharmacare is a "priority," they rejected the bill saying future collaboration with provincial-territorial jurisdictions was needed.
Let's take a look at the word priority. Historically it was singular for the first or most important thing. In the 1900s the plural appeared but how can we have multiple first or most important things? If pharmacare is a priority (singular or plural) for the government, why don't Canadians have it? Is it because if we have it, it can no longer be an election promise?
Not enacting pharmacare so it can remain an election promise was a joke (but every good joke has a kernel of truth). Is our electoral system our problem? Has it been our problem since 1921, our first election with more than two major parties?
My priority this election is promoting electoral reform with proportional representation so we can achieve most important things like pharmacare. I want Canada to reap the benefits other countries enjoy including higher voter turnout, diversity in representation, healthier citizens, increased social trust, stronger economies, and environmental stewardship. These benefits derive from relatively stable proportional power sharing election to election between parties. This supports enduring harmonious collaborations rather than unending discordant competition.
Please make your first priority voting for a candidate who supports electoral reform with proportional representation.
-- Nancy Carswell
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
