[fvc-wat-disc] Monsef on CBC The House

Sun Nov 27 18:43:20 EST 2016

There were no straw votes asking how many people support the principle of
PR.

I can remember ONE stop of 22 where I saw her take a straw poll on systems
- I *think *it was in Iqaluit and I *think *most people were for MMP. But
I'm sorry, I don't know where to find a video of that if there is one. So I
would forget that because my memory is not that reliable at the best of
times.

Here is how it typically went - I have transcribed from the Winnipeg video
in my facebook rant.

You can watch about 5 mind numbing hours of clips designed to produce no
consensus on the Canadian Democracy facebook page.

However, she's really saying that the no consensus happened in her 60
secret meetings with marginalized groups, rather than the 22 public tour
stops where everyone can see that most people there want to talk about PR.
I have no doubt that when she went to talk to homeless people,
developmentally disabled people, and people who are totally disengaged from
the system, they weren't telling her they wanted PR.

Anita

Winnipeg - https://www.facebook.com/CdnDemocracy/videos/598368827009890/

So yesterday on the House Monsef accuses Fair Vote Canada of lying ("that
is false") when we say she didn't even take a straw poll asking
participants at her tour stops a straightforward question about whether
they support proportional representation. She said something like "That is
the first question we asked. People had an opportunity to discuss that."

Well, no.

Her tour stops went like this:

1) 10-20 minutes of her walking around saying how great democracy is, how
great Canada is and that she is here twenty years and can put her name on a
ballot, how privileged we all are to be participating, and asking people to
shout out answers to questions like "What is the job of a citizen?" "What
is the job of an MP?" "Who is not in the room?"

2) Assistant explains government slide show with sample ballots - from what
I was told, at stop 22 pretending she still can't explain STV

3) Breaks room into small groups to discuss five questions. After groups
get a few minutes to talk about each question, one person from a few groups
reports back. Only the LAST question - the last ten minutes of the night -
is even on voting systems. Although throughout the night people keep trying
to get it in there - so when she says "What are barriers to voting" people
will say things like "When our votes don't count."

Does she ask for a straw poll of how many support PR? No.

Does she ask even the groups to report if they support the principle of PR?
No.

Here's what she asks the groups to do - to RANK a bunch of things like
"inclusiveness", "integrity"...

Monsef introducing that exercise in Winnipeg:

"This is the piece that allows you to connect the guiding principles the
committee is using to assess the different systems, with the different
systems. Research shows that nations that have gone through this electoral
reform process, that we could have a very technical conversation about the
different systems themselves, or we could or we could talk about the values
that matter to the people this electoral system is for. If we can connect
those principles and values to different systems we'll be able to make a
more well informed decision and allow people who haven't been following
this for decades to be part of this discussion.

So, of the guiding principles for federal electoral reform, these are the
principles that the House of Commons voted on, and they're in your paper,
and you have a sheet of paper to rank, and they're in your booklet that
describes them in more detail... Of the guiding principles for federal
electoral reform: Effectiveness and Legitimacy, Engagement, Accessibility,
Inclusiveness, Integrity, Local representation - which principles are most
important to you? Which ones are least important to you? And what are we
missing?"

The feedback she gets is basically:

These are all important. Why are you asking us to rank them? How can the
committee make any sense of this?

And there's your data collection on how many people support 30% = 30%,
folks.

Now there's "no consensus" and she can't guarantee they will keep their
promise. But what an honour and a privilege to travel "this great land" and
"have a conversation."

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Dave Arthur <arthurd23 at bell.net> wrote:

> Luisa is dismayed by Monsef’s comments as are we and plans to write about
> it this week.
> She is interested in comments from us and I plan to meet with her.
> I would like to receive any comments you can send my way.
> The problems in concise form would be best.
> Do we know for sure what the picture has been at all the meetings across
> the country?
> And the business of the straw votes?
> Dave
>
> *From:* Sharon Sommerville
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 27, 2016 12:08 PM
> *To:* FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Monsef on CBC The House
>
> Thanks for sharing Monsef's interview Eleanor.
>
> Reading the Waterloo Region town hall report, one could see why Monsef
> would say that there was no consensus for change which was part of her
> message in this interview.  If the WR report was indicative of other MP
> town hall reports then we have a self fulfilling process.
>
> She stated that she heard from passionate folks supporting PR & FPTP.  I
> have attended 4 consultation meetings: three town halls and one ERRE
> committee open mic meeting.  There was no strong support for FPTP at any
> of those meetings.  All meetings were in SW Ont. or Toronto, so that may
> bias the views.
>
> She stated that FVC's statement that the straw vote at the beginning of
> each of her town halls didn't included a vote on PR.  We have our town hall
> on video & I would like to review that segment of the meeting. Don't know
> if it is on our website yet, if not I will be in touch with Laurel to see
> if we can take a look at the section of the meeting. I remember the straw
> poll but don't recall if there was a vote on PR or if it was simply for a
> more general electoral system change. Does anyone else have a clear memory
> of the vote?
>
> One thing that she didn't confirm was the strong, clear and definitive
> policy that all Liberal MPs campaigned on.  That seems to be forgotten.
>
> We should write to The House to remind the Liberals of their campaign
> promise.
>
> Thanks again Eleanor, very interesting and a great help!
>
> Cheers,
> Sharon
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Eleanor Grant <eleanor7000 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 10-minute interview with host Chris Hall, Sat Nov 26:
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/catherine-mckenna-on-her-
>> green-blueprint-and-dealing-with-trump-1.3868982?autoplay=true
>>
>> Segment starts at apx 22:22
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Eleanor
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161127/f4908888/attachment-0002.htm>