[fvc-wat-disc] A Reply from Raj Saini
Les Kadar
leskadar at rogers.com
Sun Jul 23 07:21:55 EDT 2017
I was advised that should the party follow what they campaigned on and implement PR, they would in all likelihood lose the next election. Therefore in order to hold onto power, they decided to not do it. I advised Mr. MP that despite that perhaps being a fact in their opinion, I voted for you as one of the key tenants of your campaign and thus expect it to be upheld. He said that campaign promises are not always able to be met. Final remark was that I now seriously had to think about continues support for this party.
Here is the problem. Will any other party be able to garner enough support to get elected and put in PR once they get in office and come up with the same conclusion as the Liberals just did ?
Les Kadar
iPad email
> On Jul 22, 2017, at 3:42 PM, David Dolson <ddolson at golden.net> wrote:
>
> Can that fit on a T-shirt?
>
>
> -Dave
> From: Anita Nickerson
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 3:28 PM
> To: Jennifer Ross; FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Reply To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] A Reply from Raj Saini
>
> Jenn, 39.5% voted Liberal. That's obviously a CONSENSUS that voters want Justin Trudeau to make all the decisions based on his personal opinion, correct?
>
> But when 88% of participants to ERRE, including pretty much every ER expert in Canada as well as many from around the world agree that PR is the way to go, that's called NO CONSENSUS.
>
> Anita
>
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Jennifer Ross <2jennross at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The part that annoys me to no end is he heard from us, he heard from the poll we did, he heard from the Minister's consultation--we know perfectly well we were far and away the most voices. But he heard from three or four other people--I could probably name them all--and that negates all of us.
>>
>> At least according to this letter, where he points out he heard from people on both sides of the issue. Of course he did, but not EQUALLY.
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Anita Nickerson <anitann88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was amazed at how he could take all the previous excuses from past form letters, add Trudeau's ranked ballot preference revelation into that (hey, we'll stuff that into the "no consensus" theme and throw in what Trudeau said about nobody else would compromise) that so now it's kinda like a 5 layer #$%@ sandwich.
>>>
>>> Because the excuse letter is now so long, it looks thoughtful.
>>>
>>> There's absolutely nothing new in here and nothing personal. I get people sending me form letters from other MPs.
>>>
>>> It's too bad Raj was personally frustrated. Other MPs were "disappointed."
>>>
>>> But there was nothing they could do, you see - except fail to provide or encourage any leadership and send us these thoughtful form letters instead.
>>>
>>> Anita
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 9:40 AM, arthurd23 arthurd23 <arthurd23 at bell.net> wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, it's the same crap.
>>>>
>>>> Simply put, Trudeau wants no interference with his majority and no PR.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of consensus on either change or a specific system and lack of compromise from the opposition are convenient if false excuses.
>>>>
>>>> It relates nicely to Elizabeth May's wonderful phrase "policy-based evidence".
>>>>
>>>> It's unfortunate so many Canadians are either complacent, uninterested, uninformed, unfair, intolerant, or a mix of these.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>>>> From: Donald Fraser <donaldafraser at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: July 21, 2017 at 3:02 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Parliamentary Office: (613) 995-8913
>>>>>
>>>>> E-mail: Raj.Saini at parl.gc.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Donald Fraser [mailto: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,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power in the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170723/003fcb8d/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the fvc-wat-disc
mailing list