In Open vote MPs reject re-opening of same-sex marriage issue

[Sticky]

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...howbyline=True
07/12/2006 5:28:28 PM

MPs voted 175-123 on Thursday against a Conservative motion calling for the government to introduce legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage.

Most Tories and about a dozen Liberals voted in favour of the motion while most Liberals, about a dozen Conservatives, and all NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs present opposed it.

The Conservative government motion calls on the government ''to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''...

What I think is great about this is the following:

Both Harper and new Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said they would allow their MPs to vote their conscience.

We have to see more of this.
Hopefully these MPs were taking their constituents into account when voting.

There are two many issues where MPs are forced to vote the party line.
How else will our voices be heard if our MPs are not able to vote for us?

[Charlatan]

There are times for a free vote and there are times for a whipped vote. I think this vote, strategically needed to be a free vote.

This vote was a waste of time. The issue had already been settled. Harper made this promise to voters and had to carried it through but in reality it was never going to go his way with this parliament.

The fact that the debate preceding the vote was sparsely attended -- the PM wasn't even in the house for the debate, should speak volumes about how Harper thought this was going to play out.

Points for being a man of his word and holding the vote. Big loss of points for revisiting the issue in the first place, especially given he already said he wouldn't invoke the Notwithstanding Clause.

[fresnelly]

Can I get a big "Finally!!"

Finally!!

Now let's all move on and deal with other more pressing matters.

[percy]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Big loss of points for revisiting the issue in the first place, especially given he already said he wouldn't invoke the Notwithstanding Clause.

I believe if I heard my ears correctly, that Stephane Dion's first promise was to open the gay marriage debate.

Rookie mistake. Harper saw an out and took it. Pretty savvy politicianing if you ask me.

Don't scratch your head to much trying to figure out why many opposition, and some Conservatives (one) were pissed off.

Easy out. Only a fool would have let that slide.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by percy

I believe if I heard my ears correctly, that Stephane Dion's first promise was to open the gay marriage debate.

Rookie mistake. Harper saw an out and took it. Pretty savvy politicianing if you ask me.

Don't scratch your head to much trying to figure out why many opposition, and some Conservatives (one) were pissed off.

Easy out. Only a fool would have let that slide.

I am not sure what you are talking about... Harper has been planning to do this since day one of his election campaign when he announced he would do it. After all the Harper government is all about doing what they say. If they say it, they will do it. Oh, except for income trusts.

[silent_jay]

Yep Charlatan would be correct, I remember Harper promising to re-open this if he was elected.

What a waste of time this vote was anyways, although glad to see the outcome, and like fresnelly said, let's move on to more pressing matters.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This vote was a waste of time.

I disagree. While I think that this vote never needed to happen I don't think it was a waste of time. (note: there are plenty of other wastes of time in parlaiment)

It accomplished the following:
- Harper got the follow through with what he said he would do. I actually think this is a very important lesson for governments. If it was part of your platform then address it.
- Harper got to do it without opening up the conservatives to the backlash that would have happened had he had a majority and been able to push it through. He gets the best of both worlds satisfy his requirement for revisiting the issue and knowing it would fail he does not ahve to worry about the backlash.
- Some satisfaction to his constituents
- Some satisfaction to the more right members of the party
- Harper gains credibility for
- following through with what he promised
- not forcing his MPs to vote with him - announcing it first forcing the hand of the other parties to let their MPs vot as they wish
- Harper ends the issue on his terms
- The item is now removed from consideration we get to clearly move on
- The people were represented - one of the points made prior to this (when the Liberals handled it) is that it needs to go to the people.

[Charlatan]

So Sticky, what you are saying is that Harper got to do a bit of campaigning.

OK. I agree that for those reasons it was "worth it" but the fact that Harper wanted to revisit this in the first place is what I find appalling. What's next? What other rights guaranteed in the charter are going to be put up on the block for a re-vote?

[Ace_O_Spades]

Political gamesmanship that accomplished nothing but fulfilling a very hollow and meaningless election promise.

*sigh*

Moving on... finally.

[Yakk]

So, I was looking for a list of pre-election promises by Harper.

http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMay2506.html
claims that Harper made and broke these 13 promises:

1. the promise to "Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law" (In fact, the Federal Accountability Act (FAA) deletes five of the rules in the current Code);
2. the promise to "Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code" (In fact, the FAA increases the number of part-timers and unpaid advisers not covered by most of the requirements in the Code);
3. the promise to "Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government" (In fact, unless Cabinet ministers put ministerial staff on a list, the staff person will be allowed, as they were already, to become a lobbyist one year after they leave their staff position);
4. the promise to "Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests" (In fact, the FAA does not close these loopholes);
5. the promise to "Allow members of the public - not just politicians - to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner" (In fact, the FAA only allows politicians to file complaints);
6. the promise to “Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators” (In fact, the FAA does not empower the Ethics Commissioner to fine violators of many ethics rules);
7. the promise to "Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists" (In fact, the FAA does not include this requirement);
8. the promise to "Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Office" (In fact, the FAA allows Cabinet to dismiss the Officer at any time for any reason, which means the Officer will not have a key safeguard needed to act independently);
9. the promise to publish "all government public opinion research . . . within six months of the completion of the project" (In fact, the FAA only requires some government institutions to publish some research);
10. the promise to "Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants" (In fact, the FAA does not even protect all public servant whistleblowers);
11. the promise to "Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers . . ." (In fact, the FAA prohibits the disclosure of much of the information revealed by whistleblowers);
12. the promise to "Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted" (In fact, the FAA does not require Cabinet to create the Commission (it only allows Cabinet to do so) and since a parliamentary committee rejected the Prime Minister Harper’s nominee for Commission chair, the Prime Minister has derailed the Commission), and;
13. the promise to "Appoint a Procurement Auditor . . ." (In fact, the FAA does not require Cabinet to appoint the Auditor (it only allows Cabinet to do so) and it does not give the Auditor promised powers needed to ensure fair and transparent procurement practices).

Another three listed (including income trusts):
http://mikewatkins.ca/categories/pol...-10-09-10.html

Q: What if your party is unsuccessful in electing members from the Montreal area? What will you do? Will you appoint someone to cabinet to represent Montreal?

Stephen Harper: “No – I’ve always believed that cabinet positions should only be filled from the ranks of elected parliamentarians.”

Promise #1: Broken – on February 6th Harper appointed the unelected Michael Fortier, a long-time supporter of Mr. Harper, to cabinet. Fortier had not even run in the election, bluntly telling reporters that he “didn’t want to”.

this senator [Michael Fortier] will leave his seat at the next election to obtain a seat in the House of Commons. -- Stephen Harper

Promise #2 broken: Despite a Montreal-area riding now available for Michael Fortier to run in, he has not resigned his seat in the Senate and is not running for office in the election to be held on November 27 of this year.

And #3 was income trusts.

Also of note:
Rae and dirty tricks.
Just mentioned because I found it while doing the above research.

I can't find a decent list of Harper election promises however.