Vote in House to extend commitment to Afghanistan
- Thread starter BitWhys
- Start date
I don't know, Jay. I don't think so.
Then again, when this mission was first initiated, I wasn't paying particular attention to the workings of the Government of Canada. However, my present understanding of the situation would be that, no, the House of Commons did not consider a motion during the Thirty-seventh Parliament of Canada (I think that was the Parliament at the time) in relation to this mission.
Then again, when this mission was first initiated, I wasn't paying particular attention to the workings of the Government of Canada. However, my present understanding of the situation would be that, no, the House of Commons did not consider a motion during the Thirty-seventh Parliament of Canada (I think that was the Parliament at the time) in relation to this mission.
Re: RE: Conservative Merit
actually you are right, whipping mps to vote a certain way is not democratic, however the point I am trying to make rests on the way these free mps voted, they seem to be missing a conscience.
FiveParadox said:
actually you are right, whipping mps to vote a certain way is not democratic, however the point I am trying to make rests on the way these free mps voted, they seem to be missing a conscience.
Re: RE: Conservative Merit
Exactly
well said.
I deleted the upper portion of the post.
:lol:
FiveParadox said:
Exactly
well said.
I deleted the upper portion of the post.
:lol:
Re: Voters' Consciences
From what I have seen in the Hansard, and from what I watched of the debate on CPAC, it sounds as though the members of the Liberal Party of Canada who opted to vote in opposition to the motion, chose to do so in keeping with their conscience, and in the cases I have seen, their decisions were quite reasonable given their own particular circumstances and thoughts.
I would take, as an example, the words of the Honourable Stephen Owen, P.C., M.P., the Member for Vancouver Quadra and the Democratic Reform Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition made a lot of sense to me; I would agree that the Government of Canada, if they had intended to have a vote on this matter, should have provided for a greater degree of consultation before having put the question before the House of Commons. He voted in opposition to the motion, not because he does not support the mission in the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan, but because the Government is attempting to rush the decision without just cause.
I would suggest that Mr. Owen made some very good points in his speech to the Commons on this matter; the Government should have, in my opinion, provided for a greater degree of debate on this matter before having had the question put before the House. If Mr. Owen's suggestion that the Government denied the requests of some committees to hear from witnesses and experts on such an important matter is indeed accurate, then I would agree that a decision on this matter should have been deferred.
As most of the membership here should know, I am a supporter of our mission in Afghanistan; however, I cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that I would have voted in favour of that motion. I think that the Government should have put the question to the Commons after a strategy for the next two years had been debated, or at the very least proposed by the Government to the Commons. I have a suspicion that perhaps the Government was hoping for this motion to be defeated, in the hopes of having the Thirty-ninth Parliament of Canada a few months hence dissolved, and proceeding to rush into an election, hoping for a wave of anger on opposition parties.
Therefore, if the Government was indeed going to put a vote before the House on this matter, then they should have provided for more debate on this matter, and they should have consented to have witnesses and experts appear before the appropriate committees. There wasn't enough debate, in my opinion, on this motion, and I think that it would have been more appropriate (in this case) to not have put such a motion before that Chamber, period.
Even if this motion had been defeated, the House of Commons does not command the Canadian Forces, and I would have supported the prerogatives of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, P.C., M.P., the Member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills and the Minister of National Defence, to command the Forces through Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada.
Command of the Forces is an executive, and not a legislative, function.
Votes in our legislative chambers should, of course, be held in very high regard; however, they are not binding (nor do I think that they should be, when it comes to matters such as these). I am not sure what intentions Mr. Harper had, coming to the House and putting this question to the opposition — it may have been just to force the opposition's hand, I don't know. However, a "no" vote would not have been a "no" order.
From what I have seen in the Hansard, and from what I watched of the debate on CPAC, it sounds as though the members of the Liberal Party of Canada who opted to vote in opposition to the motion, chose to do so in keeping with their conscience, and in the cases I have seen, their decisions were quite reasonable given their own particular circumstances and thoughts.
I would take, as an example, the words of the Honourable Stephen Owen, P.C., M.P., the Member for Vancouver Quadra and the Democratic Reform Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition made a lot of sense to me; I would agree that the Government of Canada, if they had intended to have a vote on this matter, should have provided for a greater degree of consultation before having put the question before the House of Commons. He voted in opposition to the motion, not because he does not support the mission in the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan, but because the Government is attempting to rush the decision without just cause.
:arrow: My Opinion Re: The Vote on AfghanistanThe [color=red said:
I would suggest that Mr. Owen made some very good points in his speech to the Commons on this matter; the Government should have, in my opinion, provided for a greater degree of debate on this matter before having had the question put before the House. If Mr. Owen's suggestion that the Government denied the requests of some committees to hear from witnesses and experts on such an important matter is indeed accurate, then I would agree that a decision on this matter should have been deferred.
As most of the membership here should know, I am a supporter of our mission in Afghanistan; however, I cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that I would have voted in favour of that motion. I think that the Government should have put the question to the Commons after a strategy for the next two years had been debated, or at the very least proposed by the Government to the Commons. I have a suspicion that perhaps the Government was hoping for this motion to be defeated, in the hopes of having the Thirty-ninth Parliament of Canada a few months hence dissolved, and proceeding to rush into an election, hoping for a wave of anger on opposition parties.
Therefore, if the Government was indeed going to put a vote before the House on this matter, then they should have provided for more debate on this matter, and they should have consented to have witnesses and experts appear before the appropriate committees. There wasn't enough debate, in my opinion, on this motion, and I think that it would have been more appropriate (in this case) to not have put such a motion before that Chamber, period.
Even if this motion had been defeated, the House of Commons does not command the Canadian Forces, and I would have supported the prerogatives of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, P.C., M.P., the Member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills and the Minister of National Defence, to command the Forces through Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada.
Command of the Forces is an executive, and not a legislative, function.
Votes in our legislative chambers should, of course, be held in very high regard; however, they are not binding (nor do I think that they should be, when it comes to matters such as these). I am not sure what intentions Mr. Harper had, coming to the House and putting this question to the opposition — it may have been just to force the opposition's hand, I don't know. However, a "no" vote would not have been a "no" order.
we can either fight them here,on our streets,in Canada.Or we can try to stop them before they get here.Don't be fooled, these terrorists want to destroy us.
Re: RE: Vote in House to extend commitment to Afghanistan
Yeah I hate it when Afghans fight us here in the streets. How long has it been? A hundred years since we had this problem?
wallyj said:
Yeah I hate it when Afghans fight us here in the streets. How long has it been? A hundred years since we had this problem?
JonB2004 said:
So, helping the people of Afghanistan emerge from under the rule of Islamist fanatics stuck in the 9th century is a "waste of money".
Preventing the re-establishment of a regime that armed, provided training, and aide to the people who would (and did) carry terror and mass murder to the west is "a waste of money".
Supporting our allies, becoming (once again) a respected member of the international community, willing and able to carry our weight is "a waste of money".
All I can say is THANK GOD for the Conservative Party of Canada, and those that supported them in Parliament. They, with our help, may yet make Canada a place to be proud of again.
thank god is right colpy
What we all feared is a new liberal leader using our mission in afghanistan and playing off the fears of an uneducated public to win back power. This would be absolutley outrageous considering the liberals commited to the mission, only to campaign against completing the job in a cheap election ploy.
What we all feared is a new liberal leader using our mission in afghanistan and playing off the fears of an uneducated public to win back power. This would be absolutley outrageous considering the liberals commited to the mission, only to campaign against completing the job in a cheap election ploy.
Re: RE: Vote in House to extend commitment to Afghanistan
They make it up as they go along and then they call us liars.
BitWhys said:
They make it up as they go along and then they call us liars.
Re: RE: Vote in House to extend commitment to Afghanistan
I don't suppose realizing the issue could be reintroduced at any time, even via private member's bill and preferably AFTER the ISAF operation made it clear 4 years of ineffective aggressive counter-insurgency measures are no longer on the menu in the South, is within your capacity.
Jay said:
I don't suppose realizing the issue could be reintroduced at any time, even via private member's bill and preferably AFTER the ISAF operation made it clear 4 years of ineffective aggressive counter-insurgency measures are no longer on the menu in the South, is within your capacity.
RE: Vote in House to exte
Were 'some' of the Liberals voting against completion of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, or were 'some' voting against they way Harper pushed through an extension of our commitments with little consultation?
It starts to change the context of the vote don’t you think?
And where is the link that shows where the majority of Liberals are ‘quoted’ as stating their vote was against completing the mission itself which is the statement made by HankC?
Were 'some' of the Liberals voting against completion of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, or were 'some' voting against they way Harper pushed through an extension of our commitments with little consultation?
It starts to change the context of the vote don’t you think?
And where is the link that shows where the majority of Liberals are ‘quoted’ as stating their vote was against completing the mission itself which is the statement made by HankC?