For the Liberals, MP means Missing Parliamentarian!
March 11, 2010 · By Sean
So, below is a list of all those Liberal MP’s who did not show up for work, or were directed not to by their unelected leader when it came time to vote on the Budget [h/t to Alberta Ardvark & The Phantom Observer]:
MP = Missing Parliamentarian
Bagnell, Larry – MP – for Yukon, Yukon
Bennett, Carolyn – MP – for St. Paul’s, Ontario
Bevilacqua, Maurizio – MP – for Vaughan, Ontario
Byrne, Gerry – MP – for Humber–St. Barbe–Baie Verte, Newfoundland and Labrador
Cannis, John – MP – for Scarborough Centre, Ontario
Coderre, Denis – MP – for Bourassa, Quebec
Cotler, Irwin – MP – for Mount Royal, Quebec
Dhalla, Ruby – MP – for Brampton–Springdale, Ontario
Duncan, Kirsty – MP – for Etobicoke North, Ontario
Eyking, Mark – MP – for Sydney–Victoria, Nova Scotia
Foote, Judy – MP – for Random–Burin–St. George’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
Fry, Hedy – MP – for Vancouver Centre, British Columbia
Garneau, Marc – MP – for Westmount–Ville-Marie, Quebec
Kania, Andrew J. – MP – for Brampton West, Ontario
Karygiannis, Jim – MP – for Scarborough–Agincourt, Ontario
LeBlanc, Dominic – MP – for Beauséjour, New Brunswick
MacAulay, Lawrence – MP – for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island
Martin, Keith P. – MP – for Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca, British Columbia
McTeague, Dan – MP – for Pickering–Scarborough East, Ontario
Murphy, Brian – MP – for Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe, New Brunswick
Murphy, Shawn – MP – for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Murray, Joyce – MP – for Vancouver Quadra, British Columbia
Pacetti, Massimo – MP – for Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel, Quebec
Patry, Bernard – MP – for Pierrefonds–Dollard, Quebec
Regan, Geoff – MP – for Halifax West, Nova Scotia
Sgro, Judy – MP – for York West, Ontario
Silva, Mario – MP – for Davenport, Ontario
Russell, Todd – MP – for Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador
Trudeau, Justin – MP – for Papineau, Quebec
Why am I posting this when so many others have? Well, I believe it important to make the information as visible as possible to as many people as possible. Even if one person sees this list and chooses to contact their MP about it to demand answers about their lack of representation, then it was worth it.
Why is this important? Because these so-called Parliamentarians appear to be more interested in playing games rather than actually representing the people in their constituencies. In the same vein as my previous posts,
- Lions and Tigers and Budgets! Oh my!
- Michael Ignatieff is playing games with Parliament
- Michael Ignatieff: Recent History Repeating
the Liberal Party of Canada is content to usurp the values of democracy and opt instead for gamesmanship to say one thing and do another. There’s another word for that; it’s liar.
As identified in Alberta Ardvark’s comment section, maryT noted the phony photo-op the Liberals posed for regarding the “locked doors” of Parliament, which were actually open behind them [FAIL].
Yeah, so after making such a huge stink about Proroguing Parliament, they don’t even have the guts to show up!
Now THAT’S Leadership eh?
Any games played by the LPC pale in comparison to those played by the CPC. Your post above provokes such cognitive dissonance, I’m not sure how you got through the implicit self-contradictions long enough to hit “send”.
So, by your logic, there are only 2 options: support the bill fully, or provoke an election. There is absolutely no middle ground for you. How very black-and-white. To those of us in the real world, it’s quite obvious that the Liberals couldn’t support this bill, and yet also couldn’t trigger an election. Throwing the vote is the best alternative out of a list of bad options.
Having a number of members being strategically absent from a particular vote in the HoC is not even kind of comparable to proroguing Parliament to delay complying with a Parliamentary order. They’re not even remotely on the same level, and I’m sure that you’re aware of that logic at some level.
Ah, welcome back Abbatoir. Nice to see you again.
First, no. There aren’t only 2 options. There’s a third. Micheal Ignatieff can allow his Party a Free Vote in the HoC to vote their conscience or to represent their constituencies and let the chips fall where they may.
The fact is, they wanted back into Parliament to conduct “business” and then almost half don’t show for a vital vote. That’s dishonest and goes against everything they were just screaming out so very recently. Lying, Hypocrisy, Deception, it all amounts to the same thing.
And you really think that the Conservatives have played any games that could possibly compare to Adscam? Or how about the theft from EI? Anything that pales in comparison there?
I gotta agree with Sean on this one, it’s funny to see individual members of parliament bitch about proroguing, only to have a significant portion of them not show up for the budget vote.
I’m always surprised at the willingness of individual MPs (from all parties) to kowtow to the whims of the leaders and the leaders office – it’s really quite pathetic.
Also, Abattoir, feel free to browse the archives, I think you’ll find that most of the writers here are fulling willing to expose Conservative hypocrisy (and bad policy) whenever possible.
Pot calling the kettle black…
Seriously, this is comedy gold. You can’t prorogue parliament for political convenience and then slam the other guys for not showing up to vote for a piece of crap budget.
Say the Liberals bring down the government instead…oh wait, that’s actually what the Conservatives have been stockpiling for… nevermind. Abattoir has made you look foolish on this one.
On a side note, +10 points for bringing up the sponsorship scandal.
Finally “I’m always surprised at the willingness of individual MPs (from all parties) to kowtow to the whims of the leaders and the leaders office – it’s really quite pathetic.”
Do you ever see a conservative function in parliament with any independence from the PMO? By your own words, the conservatives are quite pathetic also.
Ummm….Bill Casey springs to mind RD.
And you certainly can slam the guys for demanding to be able to “come back to work” and then just…don’t.
As far as the sponsorship scandal goes, it’s a factual event. Something that the Liberals pulled. It’s a relevant issue in the face of a comment like “Any games played by the LPC pale in comparison to those played by the CPC”. Liberals would LOVE for Canadians to forget that.
If we’re talking about moratoriums on discussing past events, let’s address the Liberal complaints about past Conservative transgressions. Afterall, looking back doesn’t serve any useful purpose right? Sins of the past and all that…
Sure, the Budget isn’t going to bring any prizes home from the fair, but could it work? If Parliament in it’s entirety got behind it and worked towards a successful implementation instead of spending all their energy tearing it down, maybe it COULD BE a fantastic budget.
But perhaps that’s too much to ask of Parties without visions of their own.
btw, are you guys planning on upgrading this site to allow edited posts?
Regrettably, I make it sound like Greg doesn’t acknowledge that Conservatives follow the party line when he obviously indicated “all parties”. I’d have rewritten my text but it’s not an option.
I’d still argue that Conservatives both religiously and pathetically tow the party line.
I’d also say that your attack dog approach to the Liberals sitting out the vote, and repeating articles already posted on other conservative sites smacks of towing the party line.
I suggest we use ridicule to drive these 29 out of politics. Start calling radio talk shows, writing newspapers (especially the ones in their riding’s) start or comment on blogs and talk to everyone you know,
The message is simple:
“[insert name of MP] said the budget was bad, but they didn’t show up to vote against it . Why should we take anything else they say seriously?”
This should also be trotted out any time these 29 speak on any subject whatsoever and especially at any public event where they are speaking and you can ask questions. (video and YouTube any response please).
An especially concentrated effort should be made against Trudeau to derail any leadership aspirations and unhinge those in the liberal party who are pinning their hopes on the “young dauphin”
I think that would be a great idea actually. Being able to edit posts would allow for corrections such as that, or the ability to remove inappropriate content without losing the post in its entirety.
As far as toeing the “party line”, let me ask you this. Which is more damaging to a party? Toeing the line and maintaining an outward appearance of discipline, or always and consistently breaking with the party and revealing deep rifts that ‘enemies’ can exploit to your disadvantage?
I’ll certainly acknowledge that sometimes striking out on your own shows courage and integrity. Sometimes. Look at what happened to Garth Turner.
I also admit that I would like to see many more free votes on a variety of subjects.
In the end though, I’d rather see a united caucus who has already hashed it out behind closed doors and agreed to go out unified. Maintaining that unity requires that compromise is often made in favor of many different views instead of always only one.
Quoting other Conservative sites may seem like toeing the party line, but it’s also acknowledging source material or inspiration.
Thanks, Sean. I’ve been lurking for a while lately, but I’ve been reading.
You raise Adscam, and rightly so. The LPC deserves to wear that, if only to ensure that future governments heed the lesson that the arrogant Liberals under the Chretien/Martin years learned so harshly. I always associate it as more criminal behaviour for personal gain, but there was definitely some political gaming and a threat of a Constitutional crisis, so the comparison is perhaps apt after all.
A free vote on the budget is an interesting option, Sean, but it raises the significant possibility that the government could fall on a confidence vote. That outcome would please nobody. I wish we had more free votes in Parliament, but I can understand the reluctance on confidence matters in a minority situation.
I’ll admit to re-writing this post several times as some of your points resonated, Sean. I don’t agree with wiping out the past and focusing only on the present, but I simply can’t ignore the gaming of the democratic system by Harper & co. I’ll re-phrase my earlier point: nothing the LPC under Ignatieff or Dion even compares to the games played by the CPC under Harper. And yes, I am including the coalition attempt under Dion.
As per your comment regarding co-operation on the budget: we have a process in place for exactly that, within the Parliamentary system. Of course, when Harper prorogued Parliament until the budget was ready to be introduced, it completely circumvented that process.
Sorry guys, but these MPs have been hard at work, voting and debating since Parliament began. The fact that they intentionally and strategically skipped only this vote does not mean they weren’t ‘back to work’. If you’re going to fault the LPC for this whipped vote, then logically you have to hold the CPC equally accountable for every whipped vote since they were elected to government.
Well, I agree that they’ve been working since Parliament resumed, but my complaint was that they wanted to ‘get back to work’ and then skipped out on a vital step. I hate it when anyone does that. Conservative or not.
Regarding whipped votes, on matters of confidence, Members on the Government side have to vote with the Government, or be expelled. Bill Casey is a prime example. I agree that he should have been removed from caucus. I also agree with him standing with his constituency. He stood by his convictions and accepted the consequences of it. I’m proud of him for that! But, just because Members on the Government side must vote with the Party on confidence matters, it doesn’t mean that the Opposition has to whip their members.
I would criticize right along side Greg if the roles were reversed and the budget was something I could support. Let it be a free vote and let the chips fall where they may. The Government has to support it’s own Budget otherwise it wouldn’t be able to present one.
I don’t think Bill Casey furthers a point that conservatives don’t tow party lines. Casey made a principled decision on behalf of his constituency and was in turn booted from caucus. If anything, Harper made an example of him for other Conservatives that may have been forming independent thoughts.
Sean, I don’t disagree with the benefits of following party leadership, I’m merely putting you on a crash course with Greg who calls the practice pathetic. (nudge nudge). Since the party merger/purge, Conservatives have not been a multitude of conservative values, merely an extension of the PMO. Trust me, I truly wish those old reform candidates could speak their minds more frequently about immigration and guns etc…
With regards to the sponsorship, I’m merely pointing out that it has been a knee-jerk response for too long. The whole humor in this piece is that a conservative would have the nerve to criticize Liberals for “not showing up to work” immediately after they themselves prorogued parliament for weeks for opportunistic reasons. It takes a serious pair of big brass ones to pull off that argument with a straight face.
The sponsorship scandal was serious business but entirely unrelated. Imagine debating Obama’s healthcare reform by bringing up white water or John Kerry’s flip flopping?
Okay, you have a point there RD with the proroguing of parliament. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I recognize that the optics are there for people to perceive it that way. Thank-you for expanding on it.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call the practice pathetic. What I think is pathetic is the sheer number of whipped votes by all parties. We were promised more free votes and I want to see that happen.
That being said, I have to respect that if the vote it whipped, you obey it or face the consequences of not doing so. Whipping a vote is a necessary tool to promote important/critical issues that a Party believes in. However I feel that it is being abused by all parties for ideological reasons. Again, by all parties. Bill Casey retained my respect for his principled stand, and as an Ind. MP, he maintained his support and integrity.
I agree that the Sponsorship Scandal is too frequently a knee-jerk reaction when someone doesn’t have anything better to go with. However, I thought I was using it honestly as a comparison to scandals that parties are guilty of.
And the whole knee-jerk reaction to all of these “-gates” is another problem that I can’t stand. Every little bump is exaggerated into (or tries to be) a major scandal by tacking on a “gate” to the end of it. That I definitely think is pathetic.
As I was alluding to before, I agree that whipping votes is necessary in a parliamentary system, ESPECIALLY with a minority government.
I’m just stirring the pot since Greg posted the following:
“I’m always surprised at the willingness of individual MPs (from all parties) to kowtow to the whims of the leaders and the leaders office – it’s really quite pathetic.”
I just want to see a good ole Conservative on Conservative scrap…
The last time I believed we were going to truly see free votes was when Paul Martin took the reigns from Chretien. Afterall, what’s the harm in having free votes when you were on your way to a 230 seat majority government. Ohhh that didn’t end up happening did it?
Now that we are swinging back and forth with minority governments, you better be ready to wake up next to a horse’s severed head if you don’t tow the line.
Finally, the whole gate thing is silly. Just recently, there was a post in defense of Sarah Palin because she used Canadian medical system when she was a kid. I read this and to me the attacks were complete nonsense. If Liberals/democrats were to jump on that and see if it sticks, they’d merely be drawing sympathy to her since it’s a non-issue.
Ask Sarah Palin why she can’t think of a single supreme court ruling that was important and yet should be given the power to choose supreme court justices. Then you’d have a reason to question her ability to hold high office!
Ahhh, but RD, you’ve forgotten the 11th Commandment. You know, the one that Danny Williams broke…LOL
That Atlantic accord handling was ugly business though. The ink was still wet on the parchment…
Anyways, that’s a long time ago also.
Speaking of Reagan, (since it was his 11th commandment), I hear that Republicans are pushing to put him on the 50$ bill in favor of Ulysses S Grant.
I think it’s too early to do something like that. Come to think of it, it might devalue the currency…
Canada quiet on LIBYA- THIS IS WHY!!
UNCLAS TRIPOLI 000498
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR NEA/MAG; COMMERCE FOR NATE MASON
ENERGY FOR GINA ERICKSON
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EINV EPET CA LY
SUBJECT: PETRO-CANADA SIGNS 30-YEAR PACT WITH LIBYA
REF: TRIPOLI 474
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Petro-Canada has signed a series of 30-year contracts with Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC), bringing its old agreements into line with Libya’s preferred EPSA-IV contract standard. The new deals stem from Libya’s ongoing efforts to secure tougher terms from foreign oil companies, and mark the growing importance of Libya to Petro-Canada. End Summary. DONE DEAL – AT LAST 2. (SBU) On June 19, representatives from Petro-Canada and the NOC signed a total of six contracts covering all of Petro-Canada’s acreage in Libya. The contracts were crafted under the NOC’s EPSA IV agreement template, which has become the preferred framework for all international oil companies (IOCs) working in Libya (reftel). An agreement signed by the NOC and Petro-Canada in December 2007 was recently ratified by the General People’s Congress, paving the way to sign the actual contracts. 3. (SBU) Under the new deals, Petro-Canada has committed to pay a $1 billion signing bonus and invest $3.5 billion in the redevelopment of several large producing fields, and $460 million in oil and gas exploration. Petro-Canada will pay 50% of all development costs and 100% of all exploration costs. The company had to accept a lower production share (a flat 12% for all six contracts, regardless of location), but hopes to double its current production levels to at least 200,000 barrels of oil per day over the next five to seven years. LIBYA OF GROWING IMPORTANCE TO PETRO-CANADA 4. (SBU) As the latest company to renegotiate its presence in Libya, thereby extending its presence to 2038 (its existing deals were set to expire in 2015), Petro-Canada has now opened up new opportunities in both exploration and redevelopment projects, with a predominant focus in the prolific Sirte basin region. According to local contacts with the company, the renegotiation of the contracts is consistent with Petro-Canada’s efforts to re-position itself globally. Petro-Canada had not previously regarded Libya as an area central to its operations, given the company’s exposure stemming from its Alberta operations and gas production in Syria. This new deal elevates Libya to a priority area of operations for the company, with prospects for substantial growth. 5. (SBU) Comment: Petro-Canada’s re-negotiation is the latest in an emerging trend of contract extensions/renegotiations (reftel). The NOC is waging a concerted campaign to re-negotiate or extend existing contracts under better terms, principally with respect to production share. For their part, international oil companies – mindful of the high price of oil and limited venues for new exploration and production – have so far swallowed hard and signed up. End comment. STEVENS