Liberals pass bill

[Faid1]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The contentious budget amendment bill passed 152 to 147 in the House of Commons Thursday in a late-night, snap vote.

In a move that caught the Conservative opposition off guard, Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri proposed a rarely-used time allocation motion in the House of Commons, cutting off debate on Bill C-48.

The motion passed easily. And as the clock ticked close to midnight ET, MPs voted on the bill's third and final reading.

It was a gamble that could have forced the Liberals out of power and resulted in a summer election if they lost. But the absence of several Conservative troops in the House of Commons Thursday night ensured that didn't happen.

"It bushwhacked the Conservatives. They didn't see this coming," said CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife.

The Conservatives were left stranded after the Bloc Quebecois joined the Liberals and the NDP to put debate on the budget to bed and move onto a vote on Bill C-38, the same-sex marriage legislation.

"They looked at the numbers. They saw that the Tories had seven MPs missing," said Fife. "They said OK, let's reuse this rare parliamentary closure motion to cut off debate on C-48 and call a vote."

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but the Liberals just owned the opposition. What a cunning move, holding it this late at night.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Faid1@Jun 24 2005, 04:57 AM
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but the Liberals just owned the opposition. What a cunning move, holding it this late at night.

It just shows how far the systems slid down hill when the vote for the budget comes up and MP's don't attend to the vote, there has to be a real crack down on absent MP's during key sessions.

If I was a constituant and my MP didn't show up for a vote like this I would be somewhat p*ssed.

Typical Canada.

Bad voter turnout, bad MP turnout.

[shoestring]

If it was 152-147 then the bloc joined forces with the liberals to put forward the rarely-used time allocation motion .What they,the bloc,needed some time off?
Or did they get something from the libs. Where is Gomery when we need him?

Right after Newfoundland seperates,Quebec will follow.
Then it is our turn with BC and Sask. Disgusting again.

[MarchHare]

"When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Harper said after the vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find."

What's Harper smoking? Does he really think Canadians have such short memories that we wouldn't remember that he was making deals with the separatists just a month ago to bring down the government?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 09:26 AM

What's Harper smoking? Does he really think Canadians have such short memories that we wouldn't remember that he was making deals with the separatists just a month ago to bring down the government?

What "deal" did Harper make with the Bloc?

They are both seeking the same thing...the removal of the band of buffoons from power. I dont recall the PC's promising any sweetheart deals to the Bloc for their support, or vice-versa.

Now the Liberals on the other hand? Stronach given a cabinet post to cross the floor, the NDP gets their budget passed under the Liberal banner for support in the non-confidence motion, etc etc.

Thanks for playing though.

[Resolute 14]

No, but he is pointing out the absolute hypocricy of Martin and the Liberals.

The Liberals did everything they could to stall a non-confidence motion that had them terrified their government would fall, and then start whining when the Conservatives stalled to try and prevent this bill and the same sex marriage bill from passing this session.

The Liberals (and NDP) made a big deal about the Conservatives working with the evil seperatists. Well, the Liberals worked with the evil seperatists here to get that extension, and to subvert democracy.

I wonder if our prinicpled Human Resources minister will make a big stink about it and jump to the NDP? Oh, wait, no. She wont. The NDP cant offer her a cabinet position for her principles.


That all said, the Conservatives do deserve some blame for this. The Liberals have shown for many years that they will trample anyone's right to open debate and free speech, and have used similar dirty tricks in the past to bully their corrupt deals through. Harper should have been ready for this to happen at any time.

[Claeren]

I keep saying, the conservatives have no one to blame but themselves (or more specifically their leadership).

Politics is politics (duh). What do the cons want, for the other side to just give up and hand them the keys to the country?

They seem to act that way and it is no wonder those outside of western Canada are not interested to support them. The liberals are simply the more pragmatic option...



Claeren.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 06:26 AM

What's Harper smoking? Does he really think Canadians have such short memories that we wouldn't remember that he was making deals with the separatists just a month ago to bring down the government?

He might be right.

Every time the Libs break a promise or bury a scandal Canadians seem to forget in ...about a month.

[transplant99]

I think the bigger point in all this is how pathetic the Cnadian system is proving to be.

Govts shouldnt be having to scurry around making back door deals, taking votes when one party isnt all in attendence, etc etc.

The whole damn thing needs a massive overhaul, but no one right now has the balls to do it. I suspect years ago there was a party that would of at least tried, but they too were Western based and therefor comletely ignored from the get go by the electors in the east.

[Lurch]

Now the Liberals on the other hand? Stronach given a cabinet post to cross the floor, the NDP gets their budget passed under the Liberal banner for support in the non-confidence motion, etc etc.

Do the words 'minority government' mean anything? Or perhaps you are refering to the US system where nobody ever says "put this rider in the bill and I'll support it" Maybe it's just me, but I prefer the current situation to a majority for any party where absolute power rests with one person.

No, but he is pointing out the absolute hypocricy of Martin and the Liberals.

The Liberals did everything they could to stall a non-confidence motion that had them terrified their government would fall, and then start whining when the Conservatives stalled to try and prevent this bill and the same sex marriage bill from passing this session.

Nice irony. Liberals whined then, Conservatives now, yet only one is a hypocrite??

[/QUOTE]The Liberals (and NDP) made a big deal about the Conservatives working with the evil seperatists. Well, the Liberals worked with the evil seperatists here to get that extension, and to subvert democracy.[QUOTE]

Subvert democray? By holding a vote to A: limit debate (to get something done if we're talking a Conservative action and then B: the nerve to hold a vote on the budget. Or is it the vote to work a few more weeks that bothers you?

[Lurch]

I think the bigger point in all this is how pathetic the Cnadian system is proving to be.

Please! I may be making an assumption here, but my guess is you prefer the US system with its riders on defence spending buried in the energy bill to get support from one senator, etc, etc. But no, I guess Canada is the pathetic system.

[MarchHare]

What "deal" did Harper make with the Bloc?

They are both seeking the same thing...the removal of the band of buffoons from power. I dont recall the PC's promising any sweetheart deals to the Bloc for their support, or vice-versa.

Now the Liberals on the other hand? Stronach given a cabinet post to cross the floor, the NDP gets their budget passed under the Liberal banner for support in the non-confidence motion, etc etc.

What deal did Martin make with the Bloc? A promise to bring the Liberal's own same-sex marriage bill to a vote? Harper used the separatists in an effort to force an election (which every political analyst in the country said would benefit no party except for the BQ). You can't even compare the two.

So I suppose everytime the Liberals introduce legislation that the Bloc supports they're going to be accused of "making deals with the separatists" now, right?

No, but he is pointing out the absolute hypocricy of Martin and the Liberals.

Actually, I was pointing out the absolute hypocricy of Harper when he accuses the Liberals of making deals with separatists. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.

The whole damn thing needs a massive overhaul, but no one right now has the balls to do it. I suspect years ago there was a party that would of at least tried, but they too were Western based and therefor comletely ignored from the get go by the electors in the east.

And why shouldn't they have been? The Reform Party started as a Western protest party by their own admission. What did they offer in their platform that would make anyone East of Manitoba want to vote for them as opposed to the Liberals, PC, or NDP?

And as I said in the other thread, if anyone here doesn't like what's in C-48, you have nobody to blame but the Conservative Party. Let's not forget that the original Liberal budget was initially supported by the CPC. It was only after damaging testimony from the Gomery Inquiry that Harper smelled blood in the water and tried to force an election by voting against a budget he was once happy with.

Make no mistake, the Liberals made a budget that was CPC-friendly. When Harper pledged to vote against it, Martin had no choice but to turn to the NDP for support. It was a miscalculation by the Conservatives, and they lost big-time.

[transplant99]

Do the words 'minority government' mean anything?

Yes they do. They mean that they shouldn't be scurrying around like a bunch of rats trying to pick and choose their spots based on attendance....im pretty sure the voters of the country who DIDNT vote for them would agree.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer the current situation to a majority for any party where absolute power rests with one person.

Are you taking about the US? If so, you couldnt be more wrong. Anything that goes towards becoming law has to be approved by the Senate. Its called checks and balances, where one person/party CANT ram something through. Whata novel concept huh?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Lurch@Jun 24 2005, 07:06 AM

Please! I may be making an assumption here, but my guess is you prefer the US system with its riders on defence spending buried in the energy bill to get support from one senator, etc, etc. But no, I guess Canada is the pathetic system.

Because extreme examples of a different system proves that the Canadian system is fine?

Face it, Canada's "democracy" is a joke, and Canada is a joke because of it. It will never change becuase the beneficiary of it will not allow for a reduction of it's power.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Lurch@Jun 24 2005, 10:06 AM

Please! I may be making an assumption here, but my guess is you prefer the US system with its riders on defence spending buried in the energy bill to get support from one senator, etc, etc. But no, I guess Canada is the pathetic system.

Yes...thats correct. Canadas parliamentary system is so outdated and full of rats nests it has become , well, pathetic.

One simple change that could be made that Liberals absolutely refuse? Elected Senate. Make the Senate an actual functioning body instead of a giant retirement home for past party do-gooders.

[MarchHare]

Yes...thats correct. Canadas parliamentary system is so outdated and full of rats nests it has become , well, pathetic.

Do you have the same criticisms about the government of the UK? Or Australia? Or any of the other nations that use a Westminister parliamentary system?

[transplant99]

And why shouldn't they have been?

How high and mighty are you?

Why shouldnt the east ignore the west...is that really what you are asking?

holy crap....and you wonder why the west feels like the red headed stepchild in this wonderful piece of crap called "confederation".

The Reform Party started as a Western protest party by their own admission. What did they offer in their platform that would make anyone East of Manitoba want to vote for them as opposed to the Liberals, PC, or NDP?

Ummm...government reform...for EVERYONE. Orf course teh Fiberals and the East couldnt give two licks about anyone else but themselves, as they have proven decade after decade after decade.

Again...thanks for playing.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 24 2005, 10:18 AM

Do you have the same criticisms about the government of the UK? Or Australia? Or any of the other nations that use a Westminister parliamentary system?

Dont live in either of those countries, so i dont follow them a whole lot.

Whats your point? That because other countries have a similar system...that means its OK?

Lost me with this one.

[Flame On]

The government's working pretty well for the Libs (and by this I mean their longevity and ability to hold on). They out maneuver and outwit, hell with a minority government Harper's Cons can't get any traction. So much so that even they admit their problems, forcing him (Harper) to go on a round the country image building trip.

[MarchHare]

How high and mighty are you?

Why shouldnt the east ignore the west...is that really what you are asking?

holy crap....and you wonder why the west feels like the red headed stepchild in this wonderful piece of crap called "confederation".

No, I'm saying why should the East support a party whose stated objective was to be a Western protest party? For the same reason that you don't support the Liberals ("they only look out for the interests of the East!"), people in Ontario and Atlantic Canada didn't support the Reform Party.

Ummm...government reform...for EVERYONE. Orf course teh Fiberals and the East couldnt give two licks about anyone else but themselves, as they have proven decade after decade after decade.

Again...thanks for playing.

By "the East" do you mean "Ontario" or do you mean Eastern Canada? Because in both the 1997 and 2000 elections Atlantic Canada voted heavily against the Liberal Party, with the PC and NDP winning dozens of seats in the region.

Let me tell you something as a former citizen of New Brunswick -- the Maritimes have even less of a voice in Ottawa than the West does, but they're at least smart enough not to form (and vote for en masse) a regional protest party that will never do anything more than be the opposition and huff and complain about their region being ignored. The West could have worked within the existing parties to try to gain more influence. Instead, you opted to form a protest party that never stood any chance of forming a national government and then complain bitterly when the MPs you voted for aren't able to advance your interests from the opposition side of Parliament.

Thanks for playing indeed.