Parliament Votes Against Extending

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/27/terror-vote.html

Members of Parliament voted against a proposal to extend two controversial anti-terror measures contained in the Criminal Code.

The proposal was voted down 159-124.

Only one Liberal ended up voting with the government.

I wonder how Harper will handle this. I suppose he could call an election on it.

[madmax]

I wonder how Harper will handle this. I suppose he could call an election on it.

I just watched the vote. I didn't see a Liberal Vote with the government? Cotler Abstained, and if there was a Liberal whom voted with the government I didn't catch it. But I sure could here the jeers Garth Turner received when he voted against it.

I am totally puzzled by this vote. I am puzzled by the opposition not going for a 3 year extension. I understand the NDP opposing it. They have opposed it since the beginning. But this is a Liberal Bill and even though there is a Sunset Clause, I would have expected certain Liberals to have voted for it. Ignatieff is showing party loyalty, but I still don't understand the need for a Whip on this vote?

[jdobbin]

I just watched the vote. I didn't see a Liberal Vote with the government? Cotler Abstained, and if there was a Liberal whom voted with the government I didn't catch it. But I sure could here the jeers Garth Turner received when he voted against it.

I am totally puzzled by this vote. I am puzzled by the opposition not going for a 3 year extension. I understand the NDP opposing it. They have opposed it since the beginning. But this is a Liberal Bill and even though there is a Sunset Clause, I would have expected certain Liberals to have voted for it. Ignatieff is showing party loyalty, but I still don't understand the need for a Whip on this vote?

I believe it was Tom Wappel who voted against.

There were many Liberals were leery of the bill when it was first introduced and they were the ones who pushed for the sunset clauses. As far as why the Liberals opposed extending, perhaps it was because they believed that the present law was sufficient to the job.

[August1991]

Dion whipped the Liberals and there is still a chance at a compromise, I think.

This column seems appropriate:

Nevertheless, the underlying themes are the same as in 2000. Now, as then, the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of racism. More credibly, the Conservatives are casting a light on the Liberals' addiction to ethno-politics, an addiction that could potentially threaten national security.

...

.... there is little doubt that certain ethnopolitical special interests are calling the shots here. Among veteran Liberal insiders, it is believed that the several hundred Sikh convention delegates Bains and his allies led into the Dion camp (via Gerard Kennedy) came with a price: an end to the investigative powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was opposed for predictable reasons by various Sikh, Tamil and Muslim organizations.

Jonathon Kay

We're in the world of perceptions here and some line seems to be getting drawn.

[scribblet]

Inexplicably the Liberals along with BQ & NDP are painting themselves into the corner marked 'Soft On Terrorists'. (Also soft on criminals etc.) It will be up to them to explain to Canadians in the coming election why they voted for terrorist's rights over the desire of Canadians not to be victimized by terrorists. It's a sad day for Canada.

What will be interesting is the American take on this, if they thought we were soft before, I can imagine what they must think now. Just watch the American media pick up on this; you can probably forget using simple driver's license scrutiny at borders next year, there will be no compromise now.

Fortunately Canada so far has been spared the horror of suicide bombers, vehicle bombs, and attacks on our transportation systems. Lets hope it doesn't take a loss of life for this legislation to change.

[jdobbin]

Inexplicably the Liberals along with BQ & NDP are painting themselves into the corner marked 'Soft On Terrorists'. (Also soft on criminals etc.) It will be up to them to explain to Canadians in the coming election why they voted for terrorist's rights over the desire of Canadians not to be victimized by terrorists. It's a sad day for Canada.

So the Tories have staked out "soft on civil rights and soft on due process? It's a sad day for Canada.

[sideshow]

Complete exercise in a waste of time for all sides. While the law hasnt been used i can see both sides of the argument, and why people could be in support of it, or against it.

I think it would have been more productive to have a free vote on all sides and let the chips fall where they may.

[Catchme]

It was a free vote. Good try on trying to say it wasn't.

Thank God it was struck down, and we do have the majority of MP's willing to assure Canadians their personal liberties, rights, freedoms and due process

And it is for reasons like this they struck it down, and maybe people just better back off on declaring all those organization terrorists organizations because this is just the tip of the findings that are coming out that are showing perhaps not so many are terrorist organizations.

Much like they had try to declare Cat asteven's charity at first as terrorist organization and he had the pull right away to prove them wrong.

Evidence against Muslim charity appears fabricated

By Greg Krikorian

Times Staff Writer

02/26/07 "Los Angeles" -- - -When the Bush administration shut down the nation's largest Muslim charity five years ago, officials of the Dallas-based foundation denied allegations it was linked to terrorists and insisted that a number of accusations were fabricated by the government.

Now, attorneys for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development say the government's own documents provide evidence of that claim.

In recent court filings, defense lawyers disclosed striking discrepancies between an official summary and the verbatim transcripts of an FBI-wiretapped conversation in 1996 involving Holy Land officials.

The summary attributes inflammatory, anti-Semitic comments to Holy Land officials that are not found in a 13-page transcript of the recorded conversation. It recently was turned over to the defense by the government in an exchange of evidence.

Citing the unexplained discrepancies, defense lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish in Dallas to declassify thousands of hours of FBI surveillance recordings, so that full transcripts would replace government summaries as evidence.

The demand could force government prosecutors to either declassify evidence it has fought to keep secret or risk losing a critical portion of evidence in its case.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17197.htm

[sideshow]

It was a free vote. Good try on trying to say it wasn't.

Thank God it was struck down, and we do have the majority of MP's willing to assure Canadians their personal liberties, rights, freedoms and due process

And it is for reasons like this they struck it down, and maybe people just better back off on declaring all those organization terrorists organizations because this is just the tip of the findings that are coming out that are showing perhaps not so many are terrorist organizations.

Much like they had try to declare Cat asteven's charity at first as terrorist organization and he had the pull right away to prove them wrong.

Evidence against Muslim charity appears fabricated

By Greg Krikorian

Times Staff Writer

02/26/07 "Los Angeles" -- - -When the Bush administration shut down the nation's largest Muslim charity five years ago, officials of the Dallas-based foundation denied allegations it was linked to terrorists and insisted that a number of accusations were fabricated by the government.

Now, attorneys for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development say the government's own documents provide evidence of that claim.

In recent court filings, defense lawyers disclosed striking discrepancies between an official summary and the verbatim transcripts of an FBI-wiretapped conversation in 1996 involving Holy Land officials.

The summary attributes inflammatory, anti-Semitic comments to Holy Land officials that are not found in a 13-page transcript of the recorded conversation. It recently was turned over to the defense by the government in an exchange of evidence.

Citing the unexplained discrepancies, defense lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish in Dallas to declassify thousands of hours of FBI surveillance recordings, so that full transcripts would replace government summaries as evidence.

The demand could force government prosecutors to either declassify evidence it has fought to keep secret or risk losing a critical portion of evidence in its case.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17197.htm

Wellllll.........anytime I have a "whip" at my back telling me how I should vote, I don't exactly consider it free................

And, and keep in mind no proof here, I am sure there was a subtle "whip" above many conservatives backs as well......

[Keepitsimple]

For heavens sake, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these two provisions are constitutional as they are currently written. They have also never been used - with the exception of the single "attempt" to use them which wound it's way up to the Supreme Court. That proves they haven't been abused. By the way, the person who challenged those provisions was the wife of the only person to be convicted in the Air India terrorist attack. The Court's ruling confirmed that there is a reasonable balance between security and rights. Some dummies will say - if we've never used them - why do we still need them? Well - I'm not getting rid of my fire extinguishers - but I've never had a fire.

Since the vote was 159-124 with an abstention, that means there were only 184 members in the house. It appears that a couple of BQ's were absent but maybe as many as 15-20 Liberals chose to sit this one out. This should not have been an issue for Dion. He's got bigger fish to fry. He should have worked out a comprimise by extending for a shorter period.

[blueblood]

I think harper should call an election on this. If his gov't can't get his agenda forward, what's the point. It may as well be a coalition gov't of MPs from the other side of the floor.

[August1991]

So the Tories have staked out "soft on civil rights and soft on due process? It's a sad day for Canada.

If that's how you want to spin it, dobbin, go ahead.

But the fact of the matter is that in terms of perceptions, the Liberals and NDP are going to fight for the same urban votes on this issue in English Canada and the Liberals and BQ for the same urban votes in Quebec. The Tories are taking one larger side and leaving the rest for a divided opposition.

I frankly liked Ignatieff's suggestion. It is possible to protect civil liberties while simultaneously ensuring the safety of society. Renewing these provisions for six months and working out a compromise could have been possible. Ignatieff is also right to say that the government has had the time to do this in the past six months or so but hasn't done it.

I don't think there will be an election over this issue but this issue will colour the next election.

[Canuck E Stan]

I think harper should call an election on this. If his gov't can't get his agenda forward, what's the point. It may as well be a coalition gov't of MPs from the other side of the floor.

With the opposition pulling all the strings, why don't the opposition pull another "Kyoto". Put a private members bill forth to make Dion the new Prime Minister and vote on it,at the same time they could ammend the bill to make Layton the new opposition leader.

It would save a lot of time and money.

[jdobbin]

If that's how you want to spin it, dobbin, go ahead.

But the fact of the matter is that in terms of perceptions, the Liberals and NDP are going to fight for the same urban votes on this issue in English Canada and the Liberals and BQ for the same urban votes in Quebec. The Tories are taking one larger side and leaving the rest for a divided opposition.

I frankly liked Ignatieff's suggestion. It is possible to protect civil liberties while simultaneously ensuring the safety of society. Renewing these provisions for six months and working out a compromise could have been possible. Ignatieff is also right to say that the government has had the time to do this in the past six months or so but hasn't done it.

I don't think there will be an election over this issue but this issue will colour the next election.

The government didn't want to compromise on this so there you have it.

You Conservatives have been spinning this as being soft on terrorism and soft on crime. Forgive everyone else from thinking it's about due process and civil rights.

[jdobbin]

He's got bigger fish to fry. He should have worked out a comprimise by extending for a shorter period.

The Tories wanted no compromise.

[jdobbin]

I think harper should call an election on this. If his gov't can't get his agenda forward, what's the point. It may as well be a coalition gov't of MPs from the other side of the floor.

I doubt we'll see more crossing the floor. Those that have done it already will have a hard enough time winning again.

Go ahead. Call an election tomorrow.

[jdobbin]

With the opposition pulling all the strings, why don't the opposition pull another "Kyoto". Put a private members bill forth to make Dion the new Prime Minister and vote on it,at the same time they could ammend the bill to make Layton the new opposition leader.

It would save a lot of time and money.

Sounds like a plan.

[blueblood]

I think harper should call an election on this. If his gov't can't get his agenda forward, what's the point. It may as well be a coalition gov't of MPs from the other side of the floor.

I doubt we'll see more crossing the floor. Those that have done it already will have a hard enough time winning again.

Go ahead. Call an election tomorrow.

Whoops worded it wrong, i meant a coalition gov't of Liberals, NDP, and Bloc. I can see the tories doing well in another election.

[jdobbin]

Whoops worded it wrong, i meant a coalition gov't of Liberals, NDP, and Bloc. I can see the tories doing well in another election.

I doubt we'll see a coalition of anyone.

As far as the Tories go in an election, I have seen no poll so far to indicate that the Tories are about to win a majority.

[Argus]

I just watched the vote. I didn't see a Liberal Vote with the government? Cotler Abstained, and if there was a Liberal whom voted with the government I didn't catch it. But I sure could here the jeers Garth Turner received when he voted against it.

I am totally puzzled by this vote. I am puzzled by the opposition not going for a 3 year extension. I understand the NDP opposing it. They have opposed it since the beginning. But this is a Liberal Bill and even though there is a Sunset Clause, I would have expected certain Liberals to have voted for it. Ignatieff is showing party loyalty, but I still don't understand the need for a Whip on this vote?

I believe it was Tom Wappel who voted against.

There were many Liberals were leery of the bill when it was first introduced and they were the ones who pushed for the sunset clauses. As far as why the Liberals opposed extending, perhaps it was because they believed that the present law was sufficient to the job.

Nonsense. The Liberals opposed it for the same reason they're suddenly FOR the Kyoto accord. Their polling told them this would win votes in key groups. Don't even TRY to pretend there was the slightest ethical or moral input into this decision. It was straight politics.

[Argus]

Inexplicably the Liberals along with BQ & NDP are painting themselves into the corner marked 'Soft On Terrorists'. (Also soft on criminals etc.) It will be up to them to explain to Canadians in the coming election why they voted for terrorist's rights over the desire of Canadians not to be victimized by terrorists. It's a sad day for Canada.

So the Tories have staked out "soft on civil rights and soft on due process? It's a sad day for Canada.

The Tories have said "We care about Canadians and their safety". The Libs, and NDP have said "Screw Canadians! We care more about foreigners who came into this country illegally and don't want to leave!"

[jdobbin]

Nonsense. The Liberals opposed it for the same reason they're suddenly FOR the Kyoto accord. Their polling told them this would win votes in key groups. Don't even TRY to pretend there was the slightest ethical or moral input into this decision. It was straight politics.

Oh yes, it was all about the polls. Sorry that this will put your Conservatives back into opposition.

[jdobbin]

The Tories have said "We care about Canadians and their safety". The Libs, and NDP have said "Screw Canadians! We care more about foreigners who came into this country illegally and don't want to leave!"

I don't see Harper doing anything on the deportation law. In fact, they just changes the law to make it easier for immigrants to come and work in Canada.

[Argus]

If that's how you want to spin it, dobbin, go ahead.

But the fact of the matter is that in terms of perceptions, the Liberals and NDP are going to fight for the same urban votes on this issue in English Canada and the Liberals and BQ for the same urban votes in Quebec. The Tories are taking one larger side and leaving the rest for a divided opposition.

I frankly liked Ignatieff's suggestion. It is possible to protect civil liberties while simultaneously ensuring the safety of society. Renewing these provisions for six months and working out a compromise could have been possible. Ignatieff is also right to say that the government has had the time to do this in the past six months or so but hasn't done it.

I don't think there will be an election over this issue but this issue will colour the next election.

The government didn't want to compromise on this so there you have it.

You Conservatives have been spinning this as being soft on terrorism and soft on crime. Forgive everyone else from thinking it's about due process and civil rights.

FOR FOREIGNERS. Foreigners with terrorist associations at that. You guys prefer to put this country in danger in order to protect foreigners who can walk out of the jail any time they want by simply agreeing to go home.

[Argus]

Nonsense. The Liberals opposed it for the same reason they're suddenly FOR the Kyoto accord. Their polling told them this would win votes in key groups. Don't even TRY to pretend there was the slightest ethical or moral input into this decision. It was straight politics.

Oh yes, it was all about the polls. Sorry that this will put your Conservatives back into opposition.

This vote will please people who are hard core on the left anyway, and who would never have voted Conservative regardless.

It will trouble all the rest of the people, the ones in the middle, and it will make them more likely to vote Tory.