How did your MP vote on Afghanistan?
----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hughes
To: Breitkreuz, G. MP
Cc: Council of Cdns ; May, E. GPC ; Layton, J. NDP ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; Dion, S. LIB ; Prime Minister Harper
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:14 PM
Subject: How did your MP vote on Afghanistan?
As quoted in the Toronto Star on March 14, 2008, http://www.thestar.com:80/News/Canada/article/346019
"Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the vote results send a "strong signal" of support to Canadian soldiers, diplomats and aid workers operating in Afghanistan."
It is unfortunate that those who voted in favour of extending the stay of our troops in the US illegal 'war' in Afghanistan don't represent the majority of Canadians...
And, it is for certain, that you do not represent me and my stand on this issue, Mr. Breitkreuz - I am ashamed!
But, mostly, I am saddened by the thought of how many more of our youngest and best will die or be maimed and crippled for life by this nightmare before somebody with more wisdom, courage and statemanship than either Mr. Harper or Mr. Dion says "NO" to Mr. Bush and his mob.'
O, Canada!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
How did your MP vote on Afghanistan?
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
How did your MP vote on Afghanistan?
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:58 am
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:04 am
Below is the letter I sent to Layton, Dion, Cromartin, and David Orchard. Layton was the only politician to reply - nothing from Dion - and the reply was very swift. Phil
==========================
Re: House of Commons Vote on extending our stay in Afghanistan
March 2008
Letter sent to NDP Leader Jack Layton, Liberal Leader Stephan Dion, and David Orchard of Borden, SK
Gentlemen:
Now I understand why the Liberal Party joined Harper in voting for an extension of the Afghanistan Invasion, and complicity in the illegal Operation Enduring Freedom Search, Destroy, and Murder Campaign.
THE CANADIAN MILITARY IS ALREADY UNDER THE DIRECT COMMAND OF THE PENTAGON, VIA NORTHERN COMMAND, AND THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WAS JUST A PIECE OF THEATRE TO CONCEAL THAT FACT FROM THE CANADIAN PUBLIC.
Phil Bladen,
Box 235, Preeceville, SK. S0A 3B0
==================================
Mr. Layton's Reply:
Dated: March 19, 2008
Thank you for writing me with your concern over the recent agreement with the United States allowing for interoperability of troops during civil emergencies. We share your concern.
Please find below pointed questions asked by NDP MP Libby Davies to Defence Minister MacKay on Tuesday February 25th. Unfortunately, the Minister chose to dodge her specific questions rather than inform Canadians. We continue to monitor this situation as it progresses.
In addition, we find this military agreement more of the same by a government bent on pushing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) through without any public oversight. From the onset, we have spoken against the SPP. When these talks picked up pace in Montebello last summer, we launched a national campaign to expose the SPP. You can read background information on the SPP negotiations at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5614 and http://www.ndp.ca/stopthespp.
Many have written to say that the NDP is the only party they can trust to protect Canada's sovereignty. I want you to know that we will continue to do just that. All the best.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats
====================================
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the NDP has advocated for an increased awareness of Canada's emergency preparedness and we have also called for more transparency when it comes to military affairs.
Now we learn that the Canadian armed forces signed an agreement with the United States allowing for interoperability of troops during civil emergencies, but no one told Canadians.
Why is the Conservative government being so secretive about this agreement? What does it have to hide?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Speaker, this is actually the formalization of a long-standing agreement that has been in place. Basically, it allows for a formal agreement permitting armed forces from either side of the border to render assistance in a time of a civil emergency.
This is all about ensuring safety on both sides of the border, allowing for mutual cooperation to the benefit of the citizens of both Canada and the United States.
It sounds to me as if those tinfoil hats are getting a little tight down there.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not explained why this agreement was kept secret and even if he was aware of it. How can the Conservatives be trusted when they keep the truth from Canadians?
In the event of a civil emergency and the agreement is invoked, what process is to be followed to approve the deployment of Canadian troops to the U.S. and under whose command would Canadians operate?
Conversely, who would authorize American deployment to Canada and under whose chain of command would the Americans operate while in Canada? Why does the minister not answer that question?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Speaker, it could not have been very secret if the hon. member found out.
As it would apply at Norad or NATO, but most important, any activities that were to take place on Canadian soil would be done under the control of Canadian officials, the Canadian military most particularly.
Why have we done this? To exceed and expand upon the necessary actions that occur when people are in jeopardy. If there are ships at sea in distress, if there is an emergency involving, for example, an avalanche, this is all about facilitating the saving of lives.
We would think that a member from British Columbia would understand that.
==========================
Re: House of Commons Vote on extending our stay in Afghanistan
March 2008
Letter sent to NDP Leader Jack Layton, Liberal Leader Stephan Dion, and David Orchard of Borden, SK
Gentlemen:
Now I understand why the Liberal Party joined Harper in voting for an extension of the Afghanistan Invasion, and complicity in the illegal Operation Enduring Freedom Search, Destroy, and Murder Campaign.
THE CANADIAN MILITARY IS ALREADY UNDER THE DIRECT COMMAND OF THE PENTAGON, VIA NORTHERN COMMAND, AND THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WAS JUST A PIECE OF THEATRE TO CONCEAL THAT FACT FROM THE CANADIAN PUBLIC.
Phil Bladen,
Box 235, Preeceville, SK. S0A 3B0
==================================
Mr. Layton's Reply:
Dated: March 19, 2008
Thank you for writing me with your concern over the recent agreement with the United States allowing for interoperability of troops during civil emergencies. We share your concern.
Please find below pointed questions asked by NDP MP Libby Davies to Defence Minister MacKay on Tuesday February 25th. Unfortunately, the Minister chose to dodge her specific questions rather than inform Canadians. We continue to monitor this situation as it progresses.
In addition, we find this military agreement more of the same by a government bent on pushing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) through without any public oversight. From the onset, we have spoken against the SPP. When these talks picked up pace in Montebello last summer, we launched a national campaign to expose the SPP. You can read background information on the SPP negotiations at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5614 and http://www.ndp.ca/stopthespp.
Many have written to say that the NDP is the only party they can trust to protect Canada's sovereignty. I want you to know that we will continue to do just that. All the best.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats
====================================
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the NDP has advocated for an increased awareness of Canada's emergency preparedness and we have also called for more transparency when it comes to military affairs.
Now we learn that the Canadian armed forces signed an agreement with the United States allowing for interoperability of troops during civil emergencies, but no one told Canadians.
Why is the Conservative government being so secretive about this agreement? What does it have to hide?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Speaker, this is actually the formalization of a long-standing agreement that has been in place. Basically, it allows for a formal agreement permitting armed forces from either side of the border to render assistance in a time of a civil emergency.
This is all about ensuring safety on both sides of the border, allowing for mutual cooperation to the benefit of the citizens of both Canada and the United States.
It sounds to me as if those tinfoil hats are getting a little tight down there.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not explained why this agreement was kept secret and even if he was aware of it. How can the Conservatives be trusted when they keep the truth from Canadians?
In the event of a civil emergency and the agreement is invoked, what process is to be followed to approve the deployment of Canadian troops to the U.S. and under whose command would Canadians operate?
Conversely, who would authorize American deployment to Canada and under whose chain of command would the Americans operate while in Canada? Why does the minister not answer that question?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Speaker, it could not have been very secret if the hon. member found out.
As it would apply at Norad or NATO, but most important, any activities that were to take place on Canadian soil would be done under the control of Canadian officials, the Canadian military most particularly.
Why have we done this? To exceed and expand upon the necessary actions that occur when people are in jeopardy. If there are ships at sea in distress, if there is an emergency involving, for example, an avalanche, this is all about facilitating the saving of lives.
We would think that a member from British Columbia would understand that.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
POLL: 58% of Canadians oppose Conservative-Liberal vote
by Oscar » Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:09 pm
March 26, 2008
POLL: 58% of Canadians oppose Conservative-Liberal vote to extend Afghanistan mission
As reported on the Angus Reid Strategies website today, "The majority of Canadians are not at ease with the recent resolution to prolong the country’s military effort in Afghanistan until 2011, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found...58 per cent of respondents disagree with Parliament’s decision to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan for another three years, with two-in-five respondents (42%) expressing strong disagreement."
The polling firm also notes, "A political breakdown of the results shows that Conservative Party voters (72%) are the only ones who back prolonging Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Conversely, the majority of Liberal (63%), New Democratic Party (74%), Bloc Québécois (78%) and Green (68%) supporters oppose the mission’s extension. In Alberta, a majority of respondents (57%) agrees with the extension, while the highest proportion of opponents is found in Quebec (67%), the Atlantic Provinces (63%) and Ontario (57%)."
Their full media release can be read at
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/inde ... newsid=192.
If you go to the following web-link and scroll down to 1805 (6:05 pm) under 'Division No. 76', you can see how your Member of Parliament voted on the extension of the military mission in Afghanistan. The final vote was 197-77:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... toc2374735
On March 14, the Toronto Star reported that, "The Bloc Québécois and the NDP voted against the motion. All eyes, however, were on the Liberal benches as 20 MPs were absent from what both the government and the Liberals labelled an ‘historic’ decision. Toronto-area MPs who skipped the vote included Joe Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence), Mario Silva (Davenport), Bonnie Brown (Oakville), Ruby Dhalla (Brampton-Springdale), who was sick, and Omar Alghabra (Mississauga-Erindale), who had an engagement in his riding. Dhalla and Alghabra told the Star last night they would have supported the government motion. Party officials could not account for the other missing MPs. Newfoundland Liberal Bill Matthews was the only one in the caucus to stand against the extension, saying that he wanted to be consistent with his 2006 opposition to an extended mission and felt there were too many unanswered questions about costs of the campaign."
That story is at http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/346019.
Brent Patterson
Director of Campaigns, Organizing
& the Blue Planet Project
The Council of Canadians
700-170 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5
1-800-387-7177 ext. 291
bpatterson@canadians.org
www.canadians.org
POLL: 58% of Canadians oppose Conservative-Liberal vote to extend Afghanistan mission
As reported on the Angus Reid Strategies website today, "The majority of Canadians are not at ease with the recent resolution to prolong the country’s military effort in Afghanistan until 2011, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found...58 per cent of respondents disagree with Parliament’s decision to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan for another three years, with two-in-five respondents (42%) expressing strong disagreement."
The polling firm also notes, "A political breakdown of the results shows that Conservative Party voters (72%) are the only ones who back prolonging Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Conversely, the majority of Liberal (63%), New Democratic Party (74%), Bloc Québécois (78%) and Green (68%) supporters oppose the mission’s extension. In Alberta, a majority of respondents (57%) agrees with the extension, while the highest proportion of opponents is found in Quebec (67%), the Atlantic Provinces (63%) and Ontario (57%)."
Their full media release can be read at
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/inde ... newsid=192.
If you go to the following web-link and scroll down to 1805 (6:05 pm) under 'Division No. 76', you can see how your Member of Parliament voted on the extension of the military mission in Afghanistan. The final vote was 197-77:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... toc2374735
On March 14, the Toronto Star reported that, "The Bloc Québécois and the NDP voted against the motion. All eyes, however, were on the Liberal benches as 20 MPs were absent from what both the government and the Liberals labelled an ‘historic’ decision. Toronto-area MPs who skipped the vote included Joe Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence), Mario Silva (Davenport), Bonnie Brown (Oakville), Ruby Dhalla (Brampton-Springdale), who was sick, and Omar Alghabra (Mississauga-Erindale), who had an engagement in his riding. Dhalla and Alghabra told the Star last night they would have supported the government motion. Party officials could not account for the other missing MPs. Newfoundland Liberal Bill Matthews was the only one in the caucus to stand against the extension, saying that he wanted to be consistent with his 2006 opposition to an extended mission and felt there were too many unanswered questions about costs of the campaign."
That story is at http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/346019.
Brent Patterson
Director of Campaigns, Organizing
& the Blue Planet Project
The Council of Canadians
700-170 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5
1-800-387-7177 ext. 291
bpatterson@canadians.org
www.canadians.org
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Canada in MIDDLE EAST/EUROPE
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests