[fvc-wat-disc] What happened with ERRE (Re: fvc-wat-disc Digest, Vol 93, Issue 7)

Sat Dec 3 21:39:12 EST 2016

The entire situation is murky and that opens the door to enormous
speculation.  Perhaps this is all window dressing aided by political
theatre and because those of us that care, are passionate about electoral
reform add our emotions.  Fun times! :)

It is an often quote political chestnut that one shouldn't ascribe
conspiracy when stupidity is the answer. But here is one piece of
speculation....  could it be that this a veritable Niagara Falls of
unintended consequences.  The Liberals, in third place in the polls and the
House, on the hunt for votes in June '15  & on the move for the left of
centre position took up electoral reform and the language of PR in the hope
of scooping up some soft Green & NDP voters in swing ridings.  A number of
other remarkable turn of events led to of all things a Liberal majority,
going from 3rd party status to a majority, an unprecedented achievement.
Wowzer but what about those election promises?  Hmmm, never intended to
actually have to implement them but hey... let's see what happens.
Then in another remarkable turn of events, Trudeau gives a complex and
controversial portfolio to not just a rookie Parliamentarian but a rookie
politician! Okay... she is well intentioned but way out of her depth and on
Dec. 1st, the pressure gets to her and she has a public fit of pique in the
HoC.

As it turns out during the ERRE committee investigations, the evidence for
the efficacy of PR in undeniable, hey who knew? What is the LPC to do, we
just got back to governing and now we have to implement some crazy European
(the food, architecture, wine and beer is great but we aren't so interested
in their electoral systems) electoral systems where we have to share power,
forever. Hey not what we had in mind.  Okay, you guys on the ERRE
committee, say anything, do anything just don't endorse PR, we don't care
how you do it, make something up, alright?  Hey, Francis you looked great
doing that pretzel thing on national TV on Thursday.  But, Trudeau says,
that's my credibility is on the line here and it has been a tough week what
with my comments on the death of Castro and the KinderMorgan announcement
so I'm just going to say we are still on for electoral reform and we will
figure it out as we go.  There are a few rabbits we can pull out this hat,
let's see what that new House Leader can do, she is on record as being an
AV supporter so maybe she can .....   and so on.

One thing we can do starting Monday is to get everyone we know that
supports PR to answer the questionnaire.  Write letters to the editor of
the Record, NP, G&M, Macleans and the Star, write & visit MPs, write
Monsef, Trudeau & Butts and throw Telford in there too.

I wonder how much it would cost to engage the PR firm that did Trudeau's
commercials during the election.  Turns out they are pretty good at what
they do.

Cheerio,
Sharon

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Donald Fraser <donaldafraser at gmail.com>
wrote:

> You're not kidding it's confusing ... maybe that was the whole plan ... to
> leave us completely bamboozled ... nothing is clear ... referendum (y/n)?
> ... any change at all (y/n)? ... PR (y/n)?
>
> To whom do we appeal? The committee's work is done, so they're out. ...
> the PM? ... the cabinet? ... the opposition?
>
> On 3 December 2016 at 15:39, Sharon Sommerville <
> sharonsommerville at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eleanor,
>>
>> This article appeared in yesterday's Toronto Stat, it is reason for
>> hopeful.
>>
>> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/02/trudeau-insis
>> ts-election-reform-still-on-table.html
>>
>> In it Trudeau is clear and unequivocal again as he has said this a number
>> of times since the LeDevoir interview: he will keep his promise, the
>> government will introduce a fair electoral system for 2019.
>>
>> The situation is very confusing. To have the minister melt down in
>> Parliament and blame the ERRE for not delivering a specific electoral
>> system, to have the Liberal committee members say well maybe change, we
>> aren't sure and certainly not in time for 2019 and the prime minister
>> states (many times) that actually we are going to do this.  It is
>> impossible to understand what is going or who is in charge but the
>> recommendations will be on the cabinet's table in January so I believe
>> there are still many reasons to push on. Perhaps JT heard from his Jesuit
>> teachers who told him to keep his promise. Who knows, but until the
>> government introduces legislation in the spring we have reason to hope.
>>
>> There is also this from yesterday as well:
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/822967875632/
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Sharon
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Eleanor Grant <eleanor7000 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I meant to add to the above: When the Libs end up in Opposition in 2019,
>>> they'll *wish* they had supported PR!
>>>
>>> If only they could be made to see that now.  PR is actually in the
>>> Liberals' best interest too.
>>>
>>> Eleanor
>>>
>>> Eleanor
>>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2016 12:59, "Eleanor Grant" <eleanor7000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see why Trudeau and Monsef have to do anything. The Libs on
>>>> ERRE carried out their *unofficial but actual* mandate: to kill electoral
>>>> reform.  Why will anything further happen?
>>>>
>>>> Eleanor
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Dec 2016 12:00, <fvc-wat-disc-request at listserv.thinkers.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Send fvc-wat-disc mailing list submissions to
>>>>         fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>         http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_l
>>>> istserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>         fvc-wat-disc-request at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>         fvc-wat-disc-owner at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of fvc-wat-disc digest..."
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Re: So, what happened today with ERRE ? (Sharon Sommerville)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Sharon Sommerville <sharonsommerville at gmail.com>
>>>> To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion <fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 18:49:26 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] So, what happened today with ERRE ?
>>>> That was really well said Anita.
>>>>
>>>> And, now it is all about leadership.  Does Trudeau have the strength
>>>> that his father had when his father pushed through abolishing capital
>>>> punishment?  Something that Justin Trudeau said just after he won the
>>>> election, "People have always underestimated me."  It really is up to him.
>>>> This is one place that we should focus our message, the need for
>>>> foresightful leadership to do what is right and set the country up for
>>>> the next hundred years.  That last phrase, "Set the country up for the next
>>>> 100 years" is a quote from Tim Louis, Liberal candidate for
>>>> Kitchener-Conestoga.  Tim indicated that Trudeau said this to him during
>>>> the 2015 election & Tim found it very inspiring. Also from Trudeau, "Better
>>>> is always possible".
>>>>
>>>> Sharon
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Anita Nickerson <anitann88 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's my assessment that I put on facebook last night:
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand why Maryam Monsef was frustrated today.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't excuse her behaviour. And yes, she lied. Technically, the
>>>>> committee fulfilled their mandate. They presented alternatives to FPTP in a
>>>>> paper that describes them thoroughly.
>>>>>
>>>>> They even did what else Monsef requested - produced a majority report.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that there are already textbooks and textbooks written
>>>>> about the options for Canada aside from FPTP. This expertise is not lacking
>>>>> and this conversation is not new.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Monsef was really looking for, and no, it wasn't in the mandate,
>>>>> was to find out what the Liberals were actually willing to do. What kind of
>>>>> system they could get behind, based on what evidence and values. That
>>>>> recommendation would have given her a springboard. Something to point to
>>>>> and stand behind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead she got a phony majority report - a majority that was
>>>>> manufactured by an awful deal between the Cons, Greens and NDP for a
>>>>> referendum that only the Cons want. Because otherwise, there would have
>>>>> been five reports, a "failure" and no way to move forward (even if a
>>>>> referendum moves us backward).
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the majority was so obviously manufactured and it
>>>>> left out the governing party. Who then made sure everybody knew it in their
>>>>> supplemental report.
>>>>>
>>>>> A majority want PR - oh, except the Liberals don't want it, because
>>>>> they didn't hear consensus, it's "radical", and they recommend breaking the
>>>>> promise.
>>>>>
>>>>> A majority want a referendum - oh, except the NDP and Greens don't
>>>>> want one, they just said that so there would be a majority report and the
>>>>> whole thing wasn't dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not impressed with Monsef's performance today - blaming the
>>>>> committee because she is angry was the wrong thing to do, mocking them was
>>>>> the wrong thing to do - what embarrassing behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do understand one of the reasons why she is frustrated because
>>>>> it's the exact same reason I am frustrated: The Liberals on ERRE may have
>>>>> worked hard but in the end they endorsed nothing, are willing to do
>>>>> nothing, and just recommended the gov't kill the promise Monsef has been
>>>>> charged with finding a way to fulfill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Essentially, they just made her job harder.
>>>>>
>>>>> She's finding out what people who have been involved in this for
>>>>> decades have always known: That MPs will never willingly recommend
>>>>> themselves into an electoral system which may put them out a job by a
>>>>> simple act of legislation, no matter how much evidence you put in front of
>>>>> them and no matter how passionate you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be really nice if they would. This last committee was a
>>>>> really sincere effort to get there. We all tried hard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Monsef and Trudeau will have to lead. It's not going to be much
>>>>> fun for them. If they follow through without a referendum they're going to
>>>>> get screamed at not just by the Conservatives (who cares) but by most of
>>>>> their Liberal colleagues who mildly to viciously oppose what they want to
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But first-past-the-post is not much fun for us. And this change is
>>>>> long overdue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they can tolerate the short term pain from the current group of MPs
>>>>> and implement PR, one day Canadians will look back on this and know which
>>>>> individuals had the courage and fortitude to get us there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Donald Fraser <
>>>>> donaldafraser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was puzzled  ...  NOW I'm thoroughly confused
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the minister chastises the committee under her own jurisdiction ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> her government got elected partly on a promise to consult on
>>>>>> everything, a new style of governing  ... that's what a committee is for
>>>>>> ... it consulted and reported its findings and recommendations
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can understand the Party's reasons for not wanting PR now; that
>>>>>> is,disagreeing with the result
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT what you say publicly is a big thank you and we'll take the
>>>>>> recommendations under consideration
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Berating the committee in Parliament just announces that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) we didn't really want to consult
>>>>>> (b) we wanted our sham consultation to agree with us
>>>>>> (c) it didn't ... damn those little !@#$%^&* committee members!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 December 2016 at 08:03, Jon Bathmaker <jon.bathmaker at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> S'truth Jenn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is precisely why Big Tent parties are problematic.  Which of
>>>>>>> course leads to internal contradictions such as one faction of the Libs
>>>>>>> being big on the climate and native rights, both of which have to be
>>>>>>> sacrificed if you want to support the Alberta Oil/pipeline Bidniz.  You
>>>>>>> vote for them and then the 99 internal groups in the "big tent" fight it
>>>>>>> out for whose position gets implemented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH, if we put up a ton of pressure/demonstrations/actions then
>>>>>>> the climate/native faction will have a lot of ammo to fire at the tar
>>>>>>> sands/Alberta faction.  And we can just sit back and watch the knives come
>>>>>>> out.  :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>> *The Climate is no longer just a Crisis  . . .  it's a FREAKING
>>>>>>> EMERGENCY*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/1/2016 11:27 PM, Jennifer Ross wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You couldn't plan anything to make your own party look this bad if
>>>>>>> you tried.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Platform promises are just a means of engagement?  A public, written
>>>>>>> mandate letter that DOESN'T say what you, the author, says it says?  The
>>>>>>> only ones not on board are the ones that campaigned to get elected on it?
>>>>>>> A party that prides itself on evidence-based decision making (also, that
>>>>>>> was a campaign promise but they mean nothing now) making fun of MATH?  How
>>>>>>> shall they ever defend Climate Change is a thing if math is off the table?
>>>>>>> Or unmuzzling scientists?  Kind of hard to be both unmuzzled and unable to
>>>>>>> use math in your scientific arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Eleanor Grant <eleanor7000 at gmail.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What a day!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 333-page report from ERRE came out around noon Dec 1:
>>>>>>>> https://t.co/3dXxV2FMLi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key pages are:
>>>>>>>> - 95, where PR is clearly recommended (tho in kind of obscure
>>>>>>>> terminology),
>>>>>>>> - 319 (in which govt response is urged), and
>>>>>>>> - 321 to the end: the "Supplemental Reports" by Lib members of ERRE
>>>>>>>> and NDP & Green members.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It feels (to me anyway) like a team of horses pulling in opposite
>>>>>>>> directions. The Liberal mbrs' report denies that a consensus on PR was
>>>>>>>> reached, that Cdns were engaged, and that there is enough time to put a new
>>>>>>>> system in place and familiarize the population with the issues by 2019.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All afternoon, in the House and in media scrums, Minister Monsef
>>>>>>>> repeated the same misrepresentations, in the very same words - plus
>>>>>>>> insulting the committee and claiming they hadn't carried out their mandate.
>>>>>>>> (Their mandate never had been to call for a specific voting system.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So a day of elation mixed with shock that the governing party would
>>>>>>>> twist themselves into such pretzels to deny the obvious and doable
>>>>>>>> recommendation of the committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone else get the feeling that this was planned all along, from
>>>>>>>> the day they agreed to add members to ERRE to make it proportional?  Cdns
>>>>>>>> have been taken for a big ride.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eleanor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>>>>>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/m
>>>>>>>> ailman/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/m
>>>>>>> ailman/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/m
>>>>>> ailman/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/m
>>>>> ailman/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/m
>>>> ailman/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/m
>>> ailman/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_l
>> istserv.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/20161203/04f474ac/attachment-0002.htm>