Fiction or fact?
Mr. Rob Morrison, MP Kootenay-Columbia
Dear Sir,
Information is critical to keep our society functioning, especially in these times when normal channels of communication are challenged. However, to have value, information has to be correct or it cannot be trusted.
In the pamphlet from your office in the mail, we noted a statement that cannot be true, and yet is reported to be a “fact.” Your office claims as a “fact” that “0%” is “the number of law-abiding hunters and sportsman (sic) who approve of the gun ban.” o anyone who knows basic arithmetic, zero percent means exactly zero. In this case zero percent means that no one — not one — hunter or sportsman supports the legislation.
Unless your office has polled every licensed hunter in this riding and has received a reply from every one of them, you cannot claim that “0% of hunter supports the legislation. (We know of five licensed hunters who have not been asked their opinion — some of them do agree, some don’t — so who has the “facts”?)
Is this a trivial complaint? You might believe that it is, but consider how one bit of erroneous information can undermine the rest of the content.
Communication, especially from our elected officials has to be accurate and correct to maintain our trust and support.
Pat and Ann Rice/Cranbrook
Communication or Waste of Taxpayer Money?
MP Rob Morrison has not communicated much with constituents since the 2019 election, so I was curious to read his latest householder [householders: pamphlets paid for with public funds and mailed free of charge so that MPs can communicate with the folks that voted for them].
The thing is a disappointment. There is a set of “riding facts” unconnected to either priorities or policies, and some facts are notably wrong. For example, “did you know” that there are six First Nation communities in the riding? Me neither: there are five. Does Mr. Morrison know where they are, or what the priorities are for those communities?
“Did you know” that 0% of “law-abiding hunters and sportsman” [sic] “approve of the gun ban”? Did Mr. Morrison actually do the research, or just talk to some of his best friends? Because neither my gun-owning husband — who does approve of the law — nor anyone else we know have heard from him.
His priorities for helping “Kootenay-Columbians” (how about constituents?) are boilerplate from the Conservative playbook, with little to do with local priorities and concerns.
One of those priorities is particularly intriguing: “continuing to work with the Alberta government to find solutions to access to Federally funded health care services in Alberta.” Does Mr. Morrison think he’s elected in Alberta, or does he misunderstand the Constitution? The federal government has little constitutional jurisdiction over health care, although it has the power to transfer funds to provinces for health spending (call those “conditions”).
His wishful claim that a Conservative government will remove conditions from federal money sent to provinces for health spending is just that — wishful.
Too bad he hadn’t spent his time listening to constituents. The householder is a case study in irrelevance.
Joyce Green/Cranbrook
