Non-confidence Motion

[Seanathon]

Dipstick. Classy.

 

Also, due to me not being as informed on the subject matter at hand as I should be, can someone explain why Harper is ok with the original budget, but not the modified NDP one?

[Bizud]

The modified NDP one allocates 4.6 billion to social spending instead of a corporate tax cut.

[Moonlight_Graham]

I really don't want them to until they've passed the budget and same-sex marriage legislation, but they probably should.

i feel the same. It would be great to get that same-sex legislation in place.

 

The Liberals should clearly step-down. If this was going on in the U.S., Martin (& Chretien?) would have been impeached by now and people would be yelling in the streets. This Liberal b.s. is clearly much, much worse than Watergate.

 

Gob: Poor Peter MacKay, first Steven Harper now this?

Poor MacKay? McKay was the one who betrayed David Orchard when he promised him that he wouldn't try to merge the alliance and PC's if he became PC leader...and then of course MacKay turned right around and successfully helped merge the 2 parties. Karma's a beautiful thing baby!

 

Toadman: Yes it is my belief that voting Conservative will be like cutting off ones head to remove the cancer. One must admit that the Liberal have caused large problems, but Harper is not the answer.

 

Then what in the living fuck is the answer? Vote NDP, Vote Green, vote marijuana party, for Conservatives...i don't care and it doesn't matter, just get the stinking, thieving, sneaky, corrupt, arrogant, lying Liberals out of power. Judge Gomery is just going to dig for the dirt, he's not going to punish any of them. And the Liberals aren't going to fix themselves, thats like "letting the criminals run the prison".

 

To vote for the Liberals is to tell them that what they are doing is ok. Even if a somebody doesn't want to vote for anyone, at least show up on voting day and spoil your ballot. At least that sends the message that you actually care whats going on.

 

Harper does suck shit. The last 4 times i voted (2 provincially, 2 federally) i voted for one of the Conservative parties. But Harper really has me 2nd-guessing how i will vote if there is a fed election soon. I will either 1) vote Tory, 2) vote NDP or another party, or 3) vote for the non-Liberal party that is most likely to win in my riding (which is probably the Tories).

Edited May 19, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[Bizud]

During the last French presidential election, when the final round of voting came down to either Jacques Chirac (the centre-right incumbent), who was being investigated for some corruption issue or other, and was enjoying Presidential immunity, or Jean-Marie Le Pen (the far right nutball), one slogan was "Vote for a crook, not for a fascist." I think that applies here. No matter how bad the Liberals are (and, think about it: we'll spend more on this election than they've stolen), it is not worth electing Stephen Harper over. I hate to parrot that tired old slogan, but vote for the NDP, "a positive choice." Latest polls show Jack Layton's approval rating is the highest of the leaders, and the NDP will make major gains this election, count on it, and I'll be voting NDP to turf my local Conservative.

 

But, consider what Parliament will probably look like after this election: Let's guess 100 Conservatives (they might gain some seats, but I can name at least seven specific ones they'll lose to the NDP, where the Liberals won't be nearly as much of a vote-spitting issue this time), 110 Liberals, 70 Bloc, and 28 NDP. No majority anywhere to be found. More gridlock; a separatists dream. Is it really wise to hope the Conservatives get a few more MPs in this scenario? I don't think so. I seriously question the judgement of anyone who votes Conserative "to keep out the Liberals."

[Moonlight_Graham]

The NDP are nice people, but there are many problems in this country i see (lax immigration policies, healthcare, lazy people sucking the unemployment system just to name a few) that i believe the NDP either can't fix or won't try to fix.

 

They aren't the perfect party, there's a reason why people don't vote for them. And i'm not saying the Cons are much better (with Harper leading).

 

But IMO both of them are better than 4 more years of shit-sandwiches.

 

Sponsership + Gun Registry + Radwanski + Shawinigate etc. + election costs = $1.5 Billion?

 

Making gov't responsible for its actions = Priceless

[Bizud]

Government holds, 153-152.

 

OTTAWA - By a razor-thin margin, Paul Martin's minority government survived a confidence vote late Thursday afternoon, staving off a snap election.

 

With the support of Independent MP Chuck Cadman, the House voted evenly 152 to 152 on Bill C-48, an amendment to the budget that adds $4.6 billion in social program spending an delays corporate tax cuts.

 

That left Speaker of the House Peter Milliken, who is a Liberal MP, to break the tie and vote for the budget. The Speaker only votes in the event of a tie.

 

If the amendment had failed, Martin would have asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call a general election likely for the end of June, only a year after the last election, in June 2004.

 

The amendment was one of two-non-confidence votes that could have toppled Martin's government.

 

But there was little drama over the result of the Liberal's budget bill, Bill C-43, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper had already said his party would vote in favour.

 

It was expected the second non-confidence vote would be decided by a couple votes.

 

With the defection of former Tory MP Belinda Stronach to the Liberal fold, the Liberal-NDP coalition on the budget amendment totalled 150 votes leading up to the vote – one less than the Conservative-Bloc Québécois coalition.

 

(A Liberal MP agreed to sit out the vote as a courtesy because cancer surgery was keeping Conservative MP Darrel Stinson away from the House of Commons.)

 

Independent MP Carolyn Parrish, a former Liberal, had said she would support the budget, giving the Liberals 151 votes.

 

Earlier Thursday, Independent MP David Kilgour had confirmed he would vote against the amendment, meaning all eyes were focused on Cadman.

 

Cadman had said that he wanted to hear from his constituents before making a final decision on how he would vote. But after a recent poll of 600 eligible voters in his riding of Surrey North indicated two-thirds of respondents didn't want an election, he had hinted that he would support the budget.

 

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has indicated he will not continue to test the government with more non-confidence motions before the House breaks for summer recess next month.

 

Lax immigration policies? Are you kidding me? My instinct is to cry racism, but I'll let you defend that one. As for "lazy people sucking the unemployment system," you think that's a bigger problem than people not being able to pay rent or go to school? The incidence of welfare abuse is very small.

 

And as for the Cons being better:

 

Same-sex marriage, war in Iraq, missile defence, two-tier health care, just to name four.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Bizud

[ecnarf]

Relieved.

[Spritzup]

Agreed, that should calm things down a bit. Though it's hard to be relieved when the 'good' option is the Liberals staying in power. However maybe by needing to buddy up to the NDP, it will have a positive affect on any new policy.

[Bizud]

Please, please, proportional representation.

 

I strongly believe that the current electoral system has ceased to function in Canada. The Bloc are not going to go away, and the Right recognizes it has no hope if it isn't united, so it's going to be very hard for any party to get a majority. That would be fine, and normal for a democracy, except that Liberal+Bloc, Conservative+Bloc, and Liberal+Conservative coalitions are pretty unlikely, so what we end up with is a parliament that cannot function and will degenerate into this nonsense at least once a year when any party thinks there's political gains to be made.

 

The solution? A proportional representation system of electing members of parliament. If the Bloc's seat count matched its 12% of the vote it wouldn't be nearly so much of a threat. People could vote for who they wanted. Voters in Quebec would be able to vote Conservative, NDP, and Green, without worrying about "wasting their vote," the two Conservative branches could, if they wanted, go their separate ways without worrying about splitting the vote. We'd all be happier for it, and Canada just might stay in one piece. Otherwise, get used to a loud, angry Bloc stirring up separatist sentiment and doing their best to convince Quebeckers that federalism isn't working for them.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Lax immigration policies? Are you kidding me? My instinct is to cry racism, but I'll let you defend that one. As for "lazy people sucking the unemployment system," you think that's a bigger problem than people not being able to pay rent or go to school? The incidence of welfare abuse is very small.

 

And as for the Cons being better:

 

Same-sex marriage, war in Iraq, missile defence, two-tier health care, just to name four.

Is it racist to not want our country letting Hezbollah terror cells into this country?

 

And do you recall on New Years Eve Y2K when terrorists were caught at the border entering the U.S. in car filled with explosives? And if you want know which border that was, i'll give you a hint: it wasn't Mexico.

 

Same-sex marriage? agreed

 

War in Iraq - hindsight is 20/20. I supported the war based on the fact that most nations believed Saddam did have WMD's. Also, Chretien and our gov't didn't even have a stance on the war until they very end, and then they just said "we'll do whatever the U.N. decides". Well, thats one way not to piss off any of your voters.

 

Missle-defense - agreed

 

2-tier health-care - show me some evidence where Harper supports this?

[Bizud]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/10/canada/harphealth040510

 

And his comments regarding how provinces like BC and Alberta are allowing private for-profit clinics to operate in violation of the Canada Health Act (and getting fined for it) saying that it's basically their choice, not to mention having been president of an ultra-right lobby group that was originally created to oppose universal health care, immigration, and the Canadian Wheat Board, etc.

 

War in Iraq - hindsight is 20/20. I supported the war based on the fact that most nations believed Saddam did have WMD's. Also, Chretien and our gov't didn't even have a stance on the war until they very end, and then they just said "we'll do whatever the U.N. decides". Well, thats one way not to piss off any of your voters.

 

"Most nations?" I think it's pretty clear most nations didn't - the ones that went in were certainly a small minority. Also, doing what the UN decides is a stance - it's called, we're going to obey international law.

 

Is it racist to not want our country letting Hezbollah terror cells into this country?

 

If your means of achieving this is to limit immigration based on origin, then yes. Still, please don't tell me you buy the American rhetoric about Canada and America being full of terrorist cells. Unless something major changes, the odds of a terrorist attack in Canada are about zero.

 

And do you recall on New Years Eve Y2K when terrorists were caught at the border entering the U.S. in car filled with explosives? And if you want know which border that was, i'll give you a hint: it wasn't Mexico.

 

Hey, guess what, don't care. Not our job to defend the American border. They caught them, right? So where's the problem? Immigration has nothing to do with terrorists, and yeah, I get that you're not talking about white terrorists here, cough cough. People enter Canada from other countries all the time. Any of them could be a terrorist. I could be a terrorist. I know some brown people who speak with accents, maybe they're terrorists!

Edited May 20, 2005 by Bizud

[TheKwas]

Twenty bucks says you'll find an FLQ terrorist network, before you find a Hezbollah terrorist cell.

 

Considering that the whole point of Hezbollah is to create a Shiite Islamic state in Lebanon, and their foriegn policy doesn't extend much further than "Give back our Shebaa Farms Israel!" and "Don't invade us again Israel".

[Moonlight_Graham]

Bizud, thanks for the Harper article, i'd never actually heard him quoted for supporting 2-tier care, but i'm hardly suprised. I think that some small form of 2-tier care (ie: MRI clinics) would help take some pressure off the health-care system, but thats a whole other debate.

 

"Most nations?" I think it's pretty clear most nations didn't - the ones that went in were certainly a small minority. Also, doing what the UN decides is a stance - it's called, we're going to obey international law.

There is a big difference in a country thinking Iraq had WMD's and actually supporting the war. I'm quite sure that countries like Germany, France, Canada, and Japan etc. thought that Iraq did indeed possess WMD's, but of course that doesn't mean that they agreed with military invasion.

 

If your means of achieving this is to limit immigration based on origin, then yes. Still, please don't tell me you buy the American rhetoric about Canada and America being full of terrorist cells. Unless something major changes, the odds of a terrorist attack in Canada are about zero.

I never said i wanted to limit immigration based on origin. And yeah Canada isn't exactly #1 on the terrorist hitlist, but that doesn't mean i want them in my country. But being a Western capitalist country & an ally of the U.S. doesn't make us immune. They bombed Spain and an Australian Embassy didn't they? But again, the main point is that i don't want terrorists in this country.

 

Hey, guess what, don't care. Not our job to defend the American border. They caught them, right? So where's the problem?

 

There are terrorists in our country. I would consider that a problem. Oh and who cares if we let terrorists into the country and smuggle a nuclear weapon inside, detonate it in NYC, and let the nuclear fallout spread over Canada. Or let them come in and hijack a Canadian airplane carrying Canadian citizens and plow it into the White House. Lovely.

 

Immigration has nothing to do with terrorists,

 

Then how the fuck do they get into the country? And how the fuck did Al-Qaeda get into the U.S.? Were they all foreign exchange students?

 

...and yeah, I get that you're not talking about white terrorists here, cough cough. People enter Canada from other countries all the time. Any of them could be a terrorist. I could be a terrorist. I know some brown people who speak with accents, maybe they're terrorists!

 

NEVER did i once infer ANY race (or origin) into what i've been saying about immigration or terrorism. So fuck off with refering that i'm a racist and all this b.s. I have best friends who are Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Jamaican. I don't care what color a person is who immigrates to Canada, but if they have ties to terrorist groups then don't let them inside. Yes, that includes white terrorists too! OMG!!!

 

If you don't think terrorism or immigration is a problem in Canada, or that there isn't a link between the 2, then go read what your own gov't (CSIS) has to say about it: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rism000115.html

[Bizud]

The "link" between terrorism and immigration, first of all, rules out Canadian terrorists. Oh, but you meant islamic terrorism, right. Sorry. Second, how about the fact that the vast majority of immigrants are not terrorists? You're not going to be able to compile a complete database of "people with known terrorist ties," stop everyone at the border while you sift through it for them, and then let only the non-terrorists on their way, that's just not at all feasible.

 

Finally, the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop fostering it. Stop participating in things like invading Iraq and we won't be a target. If the US did the same it wouldn't be either, and that whole "western capitalist nation" stuff is BS. The terrorists hate our freedom!!!

 

I'm quite sure that countries like Germany, France, Canada, and Japan etc. thought that Iraq did indeed possess WMD's

 

That would be news to me.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Bizud

[Moonlight_Graham]

Ok you are right, our immigration system is great. Foreign terrorist groups are no threat to us whasoever, and there is no way to improve our immigration system or intelligence system to stop more from coming in.

[Bizud]

I have never once been afraid of a terrorist attack, it doesn't even enter my mind. I might as well worry about an earthquake or a hurricane, those are far more likely.

 

Here's how I would improve our immigration system: make it more permissive.

 

And thanks for admitting it's only foreign terrorists you're talking about.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Bizud

[Moonlight_Graham]

I'm not afraid of a terrorist attack. But i was once. Try living in Ottawa on 9/11 and attending university downtown about 10 minutes from the American Embassy.

 

I have absolutely no problem with immigrants as long as they are decent people. Its not only terrorists, as Canada has also allowed foreign crime lords & organizations into the country (but thats another debate). Just let in the good, keep out the bad.

[Bizud]

And how do you decide who's good and who's bad, and why are terrorists necessarily immigrants?

[Moonlight_Graham]

If you are shown to have links to known crime or terrorist groups, or have criminal record, you are bad. If your record seems clean, then you are good. For instance, if you or I had a criminal record we would not be able to even cross the US border for a day of shopping, and vice-versa.

 

And of course you can't catch every bad seed, but i think more needs to done to improve knowledge of what type of people are coming in.

 

And no terrorists aren't necessarily immigrants. They can be anybody. They can be refugees, which is a lot trickier situation. And of course they can also be domestic, but you can't discover them until they break the law.