Afhganistan Vote Details
This morning I did a little research into the vote last night on the Afghan mission. In particular, I was interested in how the Liberal caucus voted since the other parties voted by party line.
Liberal Caucus (102 members)
Speaker = 1 (did not vote)
Yes votes (in favour of mission) = 23 (including Brison, Iggie, and Graham)
No votes (opposed to mission) = 67 (including Dryden, Fry, Bennett, Bevi, and Volpe)
And now for the interesting part - those who didn't bother show up to vote = 11
Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) - surpised!
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard) - not surprised - always been a chicken
Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie) - wonder what public opinion is in Quebec
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)
I think if Liberals are wondering how the Conservatives possibly won that vote (and I was surprised) the answer is not with Ignatieff and Brison who we knew would take unique positions for political reasons. But some of the MPs above undoubtedly would have voted against the motion.
I think Canadians need to ask where these voters were. Were they sitting it out purposefully to let the vote pass? Was this contrived by the Liberals and Conservatives? Canadians need to ask these questions - remember, the devil is in the details.
Liberal Caucus (102 members)
Speaker = 1 (did not vote)
Yes votes (in favour of mission) = 23 (including Brison, Iggie, and Graham)
No votes (opposed to mission) = 67 (including Dryden, Fry, Bennett, Bevi, and Volpe)
And now for the interesting part - those who didn't bother show up to vote = 11
Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) - surpised!
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard) - not surprised - always been a chicken
Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie) - wonder what public opinion is in Quebec
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)
I think if Liberals are wondering how the Conservatives possibly won that vote (and I was surprised) the answer is not with Ignatieff and Brison who we knew would take unique positions for political reasons. But some of the MPs above undoubtedly would have voted against the motion.
I think Canadians need to ask where these voters were. Were they sitting it out purposefully to let the vote pass? Was this contrived by the Liberals and Conservatives? Canadians need to ask these questions - remember, the devil is in the details.
posted by Dave @ Thursday, May 18, 2006
3 Comments:
At 5:16 PM ,
S.K. said...
The others are not running for Liberal Leader. This makes a difference because neither of these men can fight an election on Afghanistan or Darfur now.
Afghanistan will be a major election issue, if not the issue, as casualties mount. And they will mount as this counter insurgency mission in Kandahr is very different than the UN mission in Kabul.
Graham can't win the next election on this either. We better hope the writ drops after we have a different leader than any of these three men.
At 9:21 PM ,
C4SR said...
Lucienne Robillard is recovering from surgery.
At 6:49 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Something to consider (from Saturday's National Post):
Why I voted to support our Mission in Afghanistan
by Scott Brison
I am fortunate to live in a country that has allowed me to become an elected Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, I would be thrown in prison or executed for being gay. The same fundamental human rights that we enjoy in Canada are no less important than the rights of the people of Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to defend those rights, at home and abroad. Those rights should be the basis of a values-based, principled Canadian foreign policy. Our country must be willing to stand up for the values that we espouse. I don’t take these rights for granted.
Following her death on Wednesday, Captain Nichola Goddard’s husband said, “We shouldn’t tuck our tails behind our legs and run … We’ve kind of got our foot in the door now to start making a difference. I think we need to follow through and carry on with the mission.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Naturally, the Taliban is becoming more aggressive, because they are fundamentally opposed to the democratization and stabilization of Afghanistan. They are fundamentally opposed to the rights of women to be treated as persons, let alone to be able to vote and get elected, as they did recently. These rights all vanish with a premature withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan. The Taliban are men who throw bombs into schools, killing and maiming young girls because they don’t believe women deserve an education. As sure as the Taliban stand shoulder to shoulder with the forces of international terrorism, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against them.
We have a self-interest as a country to help foster democracy in Afghanistan. Any premature withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in a failed state. The country would once again become a birthing ground for terrorism and a global hub for the drug trade. September 11th wasn’t just an attack on the United States, it was an attack on the modern world. Canada cannot extricate itself from the modern world, nor should it.
We also have an interest and a responsibility to help foster democracy in Afghanistan because we are a fortunate country. Like a fortunate person should do more for others in his community, we should do more for less fortunate citizens of the world. If Canada doesn’t have a role to play in Afghanistan as part of a multilateral mission, then Canada doesn’t have a role anywhere.
I was part of a government that sent troops to Afghanistan 12 months ago this week. While the conditions have changed, the objectives have not. Canada’s interest and responsibility in combating terrorism and the international drug trade are just as important today as they were then. The basic fundamental human rights, equality and democratic governance are just as important now as they were then.
We must not forget that we are not the only country engaged in the fight for democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. Were Canada to withdraw, we would not only be letting down our soldiers, but also those of the 35 other countries that are part of the mission, not to mention the people in Afghanistan.
We faced a cynical and flawed motion from the Conservative government. While it may have been politically expedient to embarrass Stephen Harper by defeating the motion, it’s clear that the next day’s headline in the New York Times and in newspapers around the world would not have been “Canadian parliament votes against cynical government motion”, but instead: “Canada withdraws support for mission in Afghanistan”.
With his rushed vote, Stephen Harper played politics with the lives and mission of Canadian soldiers, as well as jeopardizing Canada’s reputation in the world. A vote against the Harper government’s cynicism would have been interpreted broadly as a vote against the mission, and would have damaged both soldier morale and Canada’s international reputation. But let’s be clear, the positive vote should be seen strictly as a show of support for Canadian troops. The need remains for full briefings and the opportunity for Parliament to continue to consider the question. Mr. Harper should show respect to all Parliamentarians and ensure that there are regular meetings of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees to receive continuous high-level briefings from the government and senior Defence and diplomatic officials. As a responsible opposition member, I will continue to hold the government to account, in expectation that we will review our engagement in Afghanistan if circumstances change.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home