Minister of Veterans Affairs called home

[Jack Neilson]

This is not really a surprise is it?
Time for more letters to mps and others for me.

Liberals pull minister home from Europe
Last Updated Mon, 02 May 2005 17:03:36 EDT
CBC News
OTTAWA - The federal Liberals have called Minister of Veterans Affairs Albina Guarnieri back to Canada, just one day after she arrived in Holland for ceremonies leading up to the 60th anniversary of VE-Day.


INDEPTH: Victory in Europe Day

 
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Albina Guarnieri. (CP File Photo) 
The Liberals will need her vote in the House of Commons if one of the opposition parties launches an effort to defeat Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, as Parliament resumed Monday after a weeklong break.

Guarnieri travelled back to Canada Monday with NDP MP Peter Stoffer from Nova Scotia, who was also called home to be present in the House of Commons.


FROM MAY 2, 2005: Parliament prepares for a showdown

The move leaves no federally elected politicians marking this week's commemorations of the end of the Second World War in Europe.

The Conservative party and Bloc Québécois had declined to send any MPs to the VE-Day events.

Guarnieri was supposed to make speeches Tuesday and Wednesday at two Canadian war cemeteries. She will be replaced by Senator Art Eggleton, a former minister of defence in Jean Chrétien's Liberal government.

Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson is also representing Canada at ceremonies in Europe this week.

Guarnieri hopes to be able to return to Holland for the parade of veterans next Sunday, which is the actual anniversary of VE-Day.

 

[Spanky]

Is anyone surprised????

 

[Big Foot]

Sad. Very sad. For being the country that did so much in WWII, it is very lamentable that there will be no Canadian politicians attending the ceremonies in Europe. All I can say is there had better be a huge contingent of politicians, from all parties, at the opening of the War Museum on the 8th.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Also nice to know that the Bloc and the Conservatives have for priorities (obviously not our Vets). While I am no fan of the Liberals the integrity of the Conservatives as well as the Bloc should be called into question.

 

[Baloo]

Year of the Veteran.

Hah. Just lip service, nothing more. "We care".

 

[Jack Neilson]

Also nice to know that the Bloc and the Conservatives have for priorities (obviously not our Vets). While I am no fan of the Liberals the integrity of the Conservatives as well as the Bloc should be called into question.

I agree.  They could have declared a moratorium on calling a vote until the celebrations were over.  Any party which called a non-confidence vote after making such a statement woul;d certainly lose credibility.

 

[Infanteer]

You know how many 60th anniversary things I've seen in the last year or so?  Italy, D-Day, etc, etc.

60 isn't even a really significant number (no more then, say, 59 or 61).

Let's not let the business of governing Canada be set by the wayside everytime something worth commemorating comes up (because there is lots of that).  Are we not sending the Governor General?  How about a Lieutenant General or two?

 

[pronto]

Right on Infanteer...  Eggs (senator and former Defense Minister) as well as the GG (whose husband is very pro-millitary) will both be there... Let's all get a grip - the nasty-wasty Liberals are no better than the others in this regard. Canada's business is more important. Period. This is how our democracy works, so send 'em home to vote. 

By the way - no matter what you think of Clarkson - they seem to genuinely love the military, and Hubbie's dad ran the Rivers Jump school for a while too! I may hate their intellectual elitism and lefty approach to things, but they're still OK by me.

 

[COBRA-6]

By the way - no matter what you think of Clarkson - they seem to genuinely love the military, and Hubbie's dad ran the Rivers Jump school for a while too! I may hate their intellectual elitism and lefty approach to things, but they're still OK by me.

Agreed, great to see them out visiting the troops so often.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

And, we do have those stupid pins that someone paid for to mark the year...

But seriously, Infanteer is right.  Who cares what some elected official does or says there?  As long as our veterans are there, and our military (one guy from our Regiment is there right now with the Canadian contingent, I hope all the regiments are represented!)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Are you telling me they can't vote without actually being their.  We can vote without being in the country.  I'm sure something similar could have been arranged.

 

[PPCLI MCpl]

By the way - no matter what you think of Clarkson - they seem to genuinely love the military

And rightfully so, she is our Commander in Chief after all. 

 

[Sheerin]

Yeah, to vote one must be present in the House of Commons. 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/precis/chap10-e.htm

Voting Procedures

Votes in the House are conducted through the Speaker. If the motion to be voted has also been debated, the Speaker must first determine if such debate has concluded by asking: "Is the House ready for the question?" If no more Members claim the right to speak, the question is put; i.e., the Speaker reads the main motion and any amendment or subamendment, in their proper order.
Voice Votes

The vote on the motion, whether it has been debated or not, is put by the Speaker asking: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" If there is no dissenting voice, the motion carries. Should someone dissent, the Speaker takes a voice vote by saying: "All those in favour of the motion will please say yea", and then: "All those opposed will please say nay". Having heard both responses, the Speaker, judging not only the voices but also the probabilities, then says, "In my opinion the yeas (or the nays) have it." Members who wish to show that the motion was not decided unanimously, but do not want a recorded vote, may respond to the call for voices by saying: "On division". The Speaker then declares the motion carried or negatived "on division", meaning with some dissenting voices.
Recorded Divisions

If five or more Members rise in order to request a recorded division, the Speaker says: "Call in the Members." At that point, the Sergeant-at-Arms has the division bells rung for no more than 15 or 30 minutes, as the case may be, and the Whips take steps to assemble their caucus Members, committee meetings usually having been suspended.

Recorded divisions are conducted formally according to various rules and practices. Standing Orders permit no further debate when Members have been called in to a division, and specify that after the bells have stopped, when the Speaker is putting a question, no Member may enter, leave or cross the House, or make any disturbance. Members must be in their seats to vote, and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced.

A Member must actually be in the Chamber and have heard the Chair put the question being voted on in order for his or her vote to be recorded. (If a Member's presence is disputed, the House must accept the Member's assertion.) A Member whose vote is inadvertently contrary to his or her intention may not correct the error but may briefly explain the mistake. A Member whose name has been missed or incorrectly entered may correct the error either before the result of the vote is announced, if the error is noted at the time the vote is being taken, or as soon thereafter as the error is noted.

The taking of the division gets underway when the Government and Opposition Whips conclude their respective Members are ready to vote and make a ceremonial return to the House.  The bells stop ringing and the Whips proceed up the aisle together towards the Chair, bow to the Speaker and to each other and resume their seats.  This convention provides a signal to the Speaker that the House is ready to proceed with the vote.  Once the Whips have taken their seats,  the Speaker calls the House to order, rises, and reads the motion, adding: "The question is on the main motion (or amendment). All those in favour of the motion (or amendment) will please rise." A Clerk-at-the-Table calls each Member in turn, taking affirmative, then negative votes. Members' names are called by party, party leaders first, according to the rows in the seating arrangement.  As each Member rises and bows to the Speaker, the name is called in turn by a Clerk-at-the-Table and repeated by another Clerk, who records the vote. A Member may abstain from voting simply by remaining seated during a vote. Such abstention is not, however, recorded. After both affirmative and negative votes have been taken, a Clerk reports the result of the vote to the Speaker, saying: "Yeas, pour..." and "Nays, contre... ." The Speaker then says: "I declare the motion (or amendment) carried (or negatived)."

The results of recorded votes are entered in the Journals. When a number of motions follow from the same question, the House frequently orders, by unanimous consent, that the results of the first vote stand for all subsequent divisions on the question, provided that the votes are recorded separately.

 

[pronto]

CFL: I understand your point, but the rationale is that we are voting our representatives in, and the house is our representative actually voting for us... We don't need to be in country to cast a vote for our representatives, but they need to be in the house to count the vote as the representatives of us. Seems weird, but that's been the way since the original house of commons started representations in the 14th century.

Hell, I remember a vote when the house had members coming in off their sick beds to vote! (funny as hell, as they staggered in all bleary-eyed, to croak "Yea"... Then stagger out). The party whips had fun that night

 

[Edward Campbell]

CFL: I understand your point, but the rationale is that we are voting our representatives in, and the house is our representative actually voting for us... We don't need to be in country to cast a vote for our representatives, but they need to be in the house to count the vote as the representatives of us. Seems weird, but that's been the way since the original house of commons started representations in the 14th century.

Hell, I remember a vote when the house had members coming in off their sick beds to vote! (funny as hell, as they staggered in all bleary-eyed, to croak "Yea"... Then stagger out). The party whips had fun that night

That may well happen again, and soon; rumour at some local watering holes is that the Conservatives will have to fly in a couple (with private duty nurses, too) who are quite ill (cancer, I think) on the day of a vote. 

 

[jmacleod]

The real reason the Minister of Veteran's Affairs and the MP Member of the Veteran's Affairs Committee
House of Commons Ottawa, were summoned to return to Canada from VE Day events in Holland
was to ensure their vote in support of connubial sodomy in the House of Commons vote , on 4
May 2005, second reading of the highly contoversial Bill. The vote passed, thus enshrining "same
sex marriage" into the official election platforms of the Liberal Party, NDP and PQ. The Martin government
(in their opinion) could not afford for this Bill, which is defined on LifeSite News, to fail. The Martin
and Chretien government's do not have a record of strong political support for Veterans or the
Canadian military, and the snub of the Canadian presence in Holland when crass politics are the
priority is not a surprise. What may be a surprise to them is the possible reaction to this in a national
Federal election. MacLeod

 

[P-Free]

What sickens me the most is that they (the Liberals and the NDP) thought it was an important enough event to sent an Members of Parliament for and then called them back after they got there.

The Bloc and Conservatives aren't any better for sending nobody either.