Dear Editor,
I would like to respond to recent comments by Patrick Mullin regarding a meeting on proportional representation. Mr. Mullin first contacted my office in late spring regarding two possible dates that he was planning meetings at the Owen Sound Library. I could not attend as Parliament was in session.
In July I was invited to a meeting on Aug 12th on the same subject. I was already committed to a number of events in the riding on that day but as a courtesy I agreed to send one of my staff. Not to participate, but to simply gather information from the meeting on my behalf. By his actions of mentioning my staff by name in media advisories etc., it was clear that Mr. Mullin's expectations of my staff's participation were much more than just being there to take notes. It would appear that Mr. Mullin was attempting to have my staff fill my spot when that was never the intention. He knew full well that was never the intention. No one "speaks" on my behalf. I agreed to send my staff only as a courtesy to Mr. Mullin and the meeting attendees. Because of his actions, my staff member will not attend the meeting.
Mr. Mullin is very passionate about proportional representation. He would like this election to be just about this one issue. I and my team have knocked on hundreds of doors thus far in this election and not one person has mentioned this issue as a concern. I have made it very, very clear to Mr. Mullin, on more than one occasion, that I will never support any changes to our voting system that includes the "appointing" of MP's or MPP's from lists submitted by their respective parties. Every elected official should be just that - elected. In many of the systems of PR around the world, a riding ends up with 2 MPs - one that is elected and another one that is appointed from a list put forth by the various political parties. The electors of the Province of Ontario soundly defeated this kind of proposal in the 2007 election by approx 66%. Furthermore, in 2011, the United Kingdom rejected the move towards a proportional electoral system in a referendum that saw 13 million people or 68% of the voters reject this system. Further still, many countries with some form of proportional representation are looking at moving away from that system -- a system that awards candidates based on how well they represent a political party rather than their electoral district.
In closing, I am always willing to look at changes to our voting system that will make it better, but it's ironic that people like Mr. Mullin would even consider a proposal that would increase "cronyism" by political parties.
Mr. Mullin has deep ties to the Liberal party of Canada as he worked in Ottawa for the Liberals. That in itself is not a problem with me but it is important during an election campaign that anyone involved with a particular party (presently or in the past) be upfront and honest so the readers of their comments can take the writers political leanings into account when reading their propaganda.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Larry Miller