[fvc-wat-disc] A Reply from Raj Saini

Fri Jul 21 15:02:06 EDT 2017

I finally got a reply from Raj re my letter to Liberal MPs to concur with
the ER Report. It is worth reading since it contains considerably more than
most of the other more-or-less form replies. There is a clear admission
that ranked ballot was Justin's preference. We already suspected this, but
here is a clear admission.

==========================

Hello  ,

I am writing to you concerning a coming motion in Parliament to “concur”
with the Report of the Electoral Reform (ER) Committee. Traditionally such
a vote has always been a free vote.

Voting to concur will allow the subject of ER to regain Parliamentary
attention. 88% of the contributors to the ER process recommended
Proportional Representation (PR) as Canada’s new means of choosing its MPs.

I am asking you to vote your conscience and recommend that the report be
accepted.

Just two short years ago the Liberal Party was in third place demonstrating
that our fickle First Past the Post (FPTP) system is unstable and subject
to emotional mood swings of the electorate. This causes many problems such
as the Policy Pendulum, strategic voting, discouraged and disenfranchised
voters, lack of long term planning etc.

With the growing danger of Trumpism spreading to Canada as evidenced in the
platforms of several Conservative leadership candidates, we need to protect
our country by introducing coalition government which is an almost
guaranteed outcome of PR.

Yours Truly,

Donald A Fraser

184 Forsyth Drive,

Waterloo, Ontario,

N2L-1A2,

donaldafraser at gmail.com

519-576-9210 <(519)%20576-9210>

====================================================================

Dear Mr. Fraser,

Thank you for writing to me to share these thoughts on electoral reform.

I’ve had the privilege of hearing from countless members of our community
regarding this issue, as well as having the opportunity to discuss
electoral reform with my colleagues, academics, and other stakeholders.
I’ve heard an incredibly diverse range of opinions with respect to the best
way forward for our electoral system, and these conversations have
continued well past when our Government announced this winter that we would
not be proceeding with changing our electoral system at this time.

These conversations have been enlightening, they have demonstrated both the
shared commitment to civic engagement and incredible diversity in values
and opinions held by members of our community. At times these conversations
have also been, I will admit, frustrating. Frustrating because I know that
our Government made a promise to Canadians to reform the electoral system,
because of the lack of clear consensus with respect to the best way
forward, and because I came to realize, at the end of the day, that I, and
our Government, would have to break a promise we made to Canadians.
Breaking this promise – this commitment to changing our electoral system –
has not been an easy decision. However, without the emergence of a clear
preference for any specific alternative electoral system, I see wisdom in
the Government’s decision to focus on other priorities in protecting and
strengthening our democratic institutions.

There were too many barriers to electoral reform. There was no openness to
compromise in the other parties, the possibility of a referendum is one
which would have been both incredibly divisive and difficult to implement
without consensus on a clear question, and while many people supported some
form of electoral reform, with some in our community speaking of some
varieties of proportional representation, there was no consensus on what
sort of model we would implement. Both ensuring that our electoral system
had a provision for local representation, avoiding divisive politics, and
avoiding fragmentation amongst political parties which would be counter to
the fundamentally Canadian approach of ensuring that our political
institutions and parties encompass Canada’s diversity within them, were
priorities for me with respect to this file. Not all proportional systems
contain measures which would respect these priorities, and while our Prime
Minister had a solution to this – his preference to give Canadians a ranked
ballot, so they could reduce the aspect of strategic voting – others did
not agree with this approach either.

I know that there are strong cases both for and against making significant
changes to our democratic institutions, and our Government recognizes both
sides of the argument. However, there is simply no consensus in Canada at
this time. Canada’s democratic institutions are still some of the strongest
in the world, and in times of increasing global political volatility, I
understand why our Government placed such importance on ensuring that any
major changes to the nature of our democratic institutions would only be
made if they clearly had the broad support of Canadians. Governments must
be accountable for the platforms that they run. But, it is essential that
as circumstances change, opposition is clarified, policy is examined, and
public consultations report back, governments must also be flexible.

The thoughts and feedback of community members played a vital role in my
decision making process as I decided how to best respond to the issue of
electoral reform, and I wanted to write to you to let you know that your
words were in my thoughts as I made my decision regarding how to vote in
May. I wanted to thank you for your democratic engagement, and to let you
know that I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to hear your
thoughts regarding the shape of our democracy. I know that you have
expressed your disappointment with our Government’s decision, and my
decision, regarding electoral reform. And I appreciate you continuing to
write, to engage with me on this issue. I hope that you will continue to
write to me about other issues that matter to you, so that the civic
engagement which has defined our community’s discussion surrounding
electoral reform will continue characterize our community’s level of
civilized debate, discussion, and civic engagement.

I also wanted to let you know that our Government is working to move
forward with democratic reform in other ways. For instance, Bill C-33 aims
to increase voter participation by breaking down barriers to voting while
enhancing the abilities of Canada’s election watchdog. Soon, we will be
introducing legislation to make political fundraising more open and
transparent. The Communications Security Establishment has already begun an
analysis of risks to Canada’s electoral activities from hackers, and will
be releasing this assessment publically, and our Government is taking steps
to protect the integrity of Canada’s democracy by defending the Canadian
electoral process from hacking and cyber-attacks. Meanwhile, the Minister
has said that she will also be reviewing changes to the proper limits on
the amount that political parties, and third parties, can spend between and
during elections, and to bringing forward options to create a new
independent commission to organize leaders’ debates during elections. These
initiatives form the next steps of the Government’s plan to strengthen and
protect the transparency and accessibility of Canada’s democratic process,
and I believe that these commitments echo the spirit of our commitment to
Canadians – a commitment to make our democracy better.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Raj Saini

Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre

Constituency Office: (519) 741-2001 <(519)%20741-2001>

Parliamentary Office: (613) 995-8913 <(613)%20995-8913>

E-mail: Raj.Saini at parl.gc.ca

*From:* Donald Fraser [mailto:donaldafraser at gmail.com
<donaldafraser at gmail.com>]
*Sent:* 11 May 2017 10:55 AM
*To:* Saini, Raj - M.P.
*Subject:* Motion to Concur with Election Reform Committee Report

==========================================================

Hello, Raj,

 Thank you for your thoughtful and complete reply. Few took so much time to
fully explain the government's position; especially admitting Justin's
preferred choice of ranked ballot. We suspected that that was his choice,
but this confirms it. I wrote to Justin to dispute the position that fringe
parties would gain power, explaining that most PR countries have a
threshold of 5% of the vote before a party can vote on legislative issues.

Yours Truly,

Don,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170721/531b27ac/attachment-0003.htm>