> For example, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP won 32 and 25 seats, respectively in the last election but won 7.63% and 15.98% of the popular vote, respectively.
Yes, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP are labour unions. They represent the workers (MP/MPP/MLA), not the employers (you and I). Why the hell you hire an employee based on their labour union affiliation? That would be insane in any other context.
But, indeed, that's exactly what people do when it comes to hiring for government positions for bizarre reasons... That, however, is not how the Westminster system is meant to function. It is quite explicitly a representational system where each riding has a single representative who represents the single riding and only that riding. Union members working together, against the wishes of the employer, is decidedly against the original intent of the system.
There are reasons why the Westminister system is problematic, but it is not because of how the representative employees are hired. That's just a symptom. The root problem is that the Westminster system flat out doesn't fit with how people want government to function. Changing the electoral system doesn't actually change anything that matters.
Forgive me but this employee/labour analogy seems to be talking a bit past my concerns.
When folks talk about adopting proportional representation in Canada, we're most commonly talking about electing more than one representative per riding. In Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), one local MP is elected as we currently do, and then multiple additional MPs are elected to make the overall composition of the house proportional to the votes cast. You can read more here: https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/
There is nothing preventing Westminster systems of parliament from adopting these proportional elections. In fact there are many, many extant examples ranging from Denmark to former colonies like New Zealand.
> Forgive me but this employee/labour analogy seems to be talking a bit past my concerns.
I'm not sure which analogy you refer to. They are literally employees in every sense of the word. There is no analogy – that is straight up what it is.
> then multiple additional MPs are elected to make the overall composition of the house proportional to the votes cast.
You improve the proportion of labour union representation, perhaps, which we have already talked about, but why are we selecting employees based on their labour union membership in the first place? If you hire people at your private sector job, do you elect them based on their labour union affiliation? Or do you elect based on your understanding of how they will represent your organization, selecting the worker who you feel will do the best job?