Political letters: May and Duncan

MP Elizabeth May wrote today, as she does from time-to-time.
Usually I'm not moved to action by such letters,  recognizing  them for the fundraising efforts they regularly are.
However, this one raised a very important point, pointing to continuing manipulation of the rules of the House of Commons by the Conservative Government, which make it difficult for her to do her job. She identified this rule change as "a motion to require that members, who are either independent or are members of recognized parties with fewer than 12 MPs, submit amendments to committee 48 hours prior to the start of clause by clause consideration of any bill" and demonstrated this was clearly aimed at her interventions in the past.
She further noted that the "Conservative approach, of rejecting any and all amendments while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of the parliamentary process. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process."
And then, as expected, came the request to add my name and email address to a petition...appeals to fill Green Party coffers guaranteed to follow.
That said, I think she's right to be both offended and worried. And she's right that her privilege in the House is ultimately our privilege.
So I wrote a reply:

Ms May:
I am persuaded by your explanation of how the rights of individual MPs are being abridged by the governing Conservatives.
However, I will not put my name on a petition on the letterhead of the Green Party of Canada, as I do not support that party, either federally or provincially.
I will, however, write to John Duncan, my MP, and will add a copy to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.
Sincerely,

And followed that with a letter to my MP:

Dear Minister Duncan,
I have just received a letter from Elizabeth May, MP, detailing the latest roadblock your party has put in her way, making it difficult for her to be an effective Member of Parliament.
She writes, "The Conservative approach, of rejecting any and all amendments while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of the parliamentary process. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process."
Although I am not a supporter of her party, her arguments and examples make sense to me, as I would hope they make sense to you. As you served many years as an Opposition MP, I would hope that you would abhor anything that frustrates the job of such MPs, on the grounds that her Vancouver Island constituents deserve an effective voice just as much as your Vancouver Island constituents.
And I would hope you speak up accordingly.
Yours very sincerely,

Just the latest anti-democratic initiative from a government that claims the following:

Canada's commitment to open government is part of the federal government's efforts to foster greater openness and accountability, to provide Canadians with more opportunities to learn about and participate in government, to drive innovation and economic opportunities for all Canadians and, at the same time, create a more cost effective, efficient and responsive government.