Editor's note: The following is an open letter to MP Paul Lefebvre, which is in response to a letter from the MPP which was itself in response to a letter from the Council of Canadians.
We really cannot accept your political explanation of the cancellation of electoral reform because we are smarter than expected and too well informed.
You must be feeling some discomfort in being obliged to pass on your message. Let me advise you as to why we don’t accept this reply and perhaps you can pass this information on to the party for their edification - just in case they might want to stop insulting intelligent Canadians.
Firstly, the commitments for electoral reform were not conditional upon citizen “participation." The government’s commitment was to undertake electoral reform with the authority and power granted to it by the electorate pursuant to our constitution. Let me know next time you want my approval when the government wants to cut taxes to big business and I'll tell you what I want. To blame this betrayal on citizen participation is shameful, transparent and, to say the least, immature and childish.
Secondly, the “consultation” undertaken by the government was designed to fail. Either those responsible for organizing the consultation were stupid, or they were deliberate in their design. A broad-based consultation on a complex issue must be undertaken within parameters that define the issues and formulate clear questions in order to channel discussions towards a finite conclusion. I learned this in Management 101 at school. This precept is fundamental and rudimentary in the field of consultation. Your party launched the consultation process with, “well folks what do you think about electoral reform? [and] gee, we don’t have any specific ideas about what electoral reform might be.” That approach was designed to fail and fail it did. We could go on for pages outlining how the consultation was flawed, but I believe we have enough on our plates to prove that it was flawed - by design.
Thirdly, how dare you tell us your government stated clearly that, "changes of this magnitude, should only be made if they have the broad support of Canadians.”
You had the broad support of Canadians when they elected you. What more did you need? Orwell’s “1984” predicted the evolution of double-speak and it appears the Liberals also read the book. But what they fail to understand is that double-speak is not a good thing.
Please don’t leave us with the sop that your government is, “protecting our democratic institutions from cyber attack.” Cyber attacks recently came into vogue with the latest U.S. elections. They are trite news-bits tossed out as fodder to an ignorant U.S. public that recently elected the likes of Donald Trump. Please do not tar us with the same brush.
Incidentally, CSIS, our Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has been working on that in the normal course of operations. Perhaps you should take another look at Bill C-51 that the Harper government put in place to consolidate the security service’s broad sweeping powers to monitor Canadian citizens.
Finally, Mr. Lefebvre, since you are succumbing to the party line, you are not working for us or representing our concerns here in Sudbury.
André Clément
Sudbury Chapter, Council of Canadians
Following is the response from Paul Lefebvre mentioned in the above letter:
Thank you for writing to me about electoral reform. It is always a pleasure to speak with constituents – open dialogue is a vital part of my job.
Our government strongly believes in the role of Parliament and in public consultation in examining the issue of electoral reform. We listened to Canadians. Our view has always been clear: major reforms to the electoral system, changes of this magnitude, should only be made if they have the broad support of Canadians.
Over the last year, our government engaged in an unprecedented dialogue with Canadians about their democracy. We respect and thank all those who have come forward to participate in these discussions. It has informed our decisions.
While we heard a wide range of opinions from Canadians, there is no clear consensus on an alternative voting system for Canada. It has become evident that the broad support needed among Canadians for a change of this magnitude does not exist.
Our government is committed to improving this country’s electoral system. We have already introduced legislation to repeal undemocratic elements of the previous government’s Fair Elections Act, and we will continue to move forward with measures to strengthen our democracy, including increasing transparency in political fundraising and protecting our democratic institutions from cyber-attack.
Thank you again for your engagement on this issue. It is because of engaged citizens like you that our riding, Sudbury has such a thriving democratic tradition. I am proud to be a part of that and to work for you, representing your concerns in Ottawa.