Conservatives vote against support for veterans

[klacquement]

In a move that should surprise nobody these days, the Conservative Party unanimously voted against improved support for veterans.  Every other Member of Parliament, on the other hand, voted to do the right thing.

Vote No. 47
41st Parliament, 2nd Session
Sitting No. 40 - Monday, February 03, 2014
Sponsor: Mr. Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant)

That, in the opinion of the House, the men and women who bravely serve Canada in the armed forces should be able to count on the government for support in their time of need, and that the government should demonstrate this support by (a) immediately addressing the mental health crisis facing Canadian soldiers and veterans by hiring appropriate mental health professionals; (b) reversing its decision to close veterans' offices; and (c) prioritizing and concluding the over 50 outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides so that grieving families may have answers and closure.

Yea:  117 (all non-Conservative)
Nay: 146 (all Conservative)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&Vote=47&GroupBy=party&FltrParl=41&FltrSes=2

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Talk about the most misleading thread topic of all time....

 

[Journeyman]

Talk about the most misleading thread topic of all time....

:nod:

 

[Lightguns]

Honestly, did the dippers pay you or what?  The dippers are just itching to form a government so they can open the treasury and give you all your perceived entitlements and no tax increases either! :facepalm:

 

[Occam]

Okay, to be entirely correct, the CPC voted "Nay" to:

(a) immediately addressing the mental health crisis facing Canadian soldiers and veterans by hiring appropriate mental health professionals;
(b) reversing its decision to close veterans' offices; and
(c) prioritizing and concluding the over 50 outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides so that grieving families may have answers and closure

Hard to justify voting against those measures.  I'm sure it won't stop them from trying and failing miserably...

 

[Remius]

It would have been more approriate to state that they voted against an NDP motion that supported veterans. 

Political manoeuvering, and trying to put the CPC in a corner.  That's all this was.

 

[Journeyman]

Hard to justify voting against those measures. 

Not if you've got your mind made up that Harper is the lapdog of Satan.

This may shock you, but the NDP doesn't give a rat's buttock about the serving military or veterans.

By tying the three measures together, the NDP knew full well that the Conservatives would not vote to reverse the decision on veterans' offices -- the hand-wringing media issue of the day.  They voted down the motion, and now the political left can clamour that the Harper government is evil.  Political grand-standing, plain and simple.

Hence the dumbass thread title.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have no love for the CPC right now.

Having said that, the motion was introduced strictly to make the CPC look bad. Not to provide any benefit to Vets.

Points a) & c) may have been negotiated and possible.

However, the opposition inserted the poison pill of option b) knowing full well the CPC could not reverse their decision and therefore would vote against the motion and look bad to people that only look as far as catch phrases like this thread title.

The opposition has, seemingly for now, moved on from the tea cup tempest of the Senate and replaced the bit in their mouths with Veteran's issues. Hopefully, something concrete and good will come of their politicizing issues for party points, for a change.

 

[Occam]

Yes, I agree the thread title was poorly chosen.

Yes, the motion was introduced to make the CPC look bad - although at this point, the CPC is keeping up that appearance just fine without any outside assistance.

Yes, I realize that there is a fairly strong base of CPC supporters here in the forum.  I was one of them, until about a year or so ago.  Total loss of confidence in them since then.

No, I don't believe Harper is the lapdog of Satan.  He is Satan.   

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, I realize that there is a fairly strong base of CPC supporters here in the forum. 

I don't unquestioningly support one party or another;  one would have to be pretty delusional though to believe that the Liberals would be any more supportive of the military.  Forgotten their track-record already?

And the NDP?  Hell, they'd disband us all if they could.  It's a sick joke for them to pretend to give a f*ck about us.

 

[Remius]

I don't unquestioningly support one party or another;  one would have to be pretty delusional though to believe that the Liberals would be any more supportive of the military.  Forgotten their track-record already?

And the NDP?  Hell, they'd disband us all if they could.  It's a sick joke for them to pretend to give a **** about us.

Well it isn't all that bad.  The NDP deserves some credit for getting former members the ability to credit their time served toward vacation time in the PS.  It was their idea.  And I'm pretty sure they've been veteran's advocates for a while.

But yes.  It was political and nothing but.  Unfortunately vets are the ones caught in the middle.

 

[Occam]

Unfortunately, I do remember the Liberal track record.  Ultimately, for me, it's going to come down to the lesser of three evils.  If the Liberals can actually put out a platform (and keep to it), instead of simply taking the polar opposite position of whatever the CPC is saying, they'd be a viable alternative.  Until then, it's the NDP or tossing away a vote on the Greens.  The choices truly are limited...and unfortunately, I'll not be able to bring myself to consider the CPC one of them unless there is radical change from the top down.  They've swung way out past where traditional PC supporters like me reside on the spectrum.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The NDP bill should properly, have been called "An act to institutionalize even more civil service featherbedding."

  1. One of the problems facing everyone suffering any sort of stress or disorder is a nation wide shortage of mental health professionals. It may be true that DND is going short, but so is everyone in Canada.

  2. The regional offices marked for closure cannot be justified by workload. There are other places where services are needed. Wasting my hard earned money to keep underworked union members at their desks may be a core NDP value
      but it will, always, cost them my vote.

  3. Finally: how to they plan to "prioritize" and "conclude" the outstanding BOIs? The NDP stands for sloppy staff work and platitudes. The Liberals, as far as I can see, to date, and I am a pretty close watcher of politics, stand for nothing
      ... nothing beyond legalizing pot, anyway. Grieving families do deserve "closure" (whatever that is) but not until we use the processes of BOIs to give them, and the CF and the whole country, some useful insights into the problems
      some veterans face.

Call me when either the Liberals or the NDP have any policies that make any sense. Until then my vote remains committed to the CPC because, while I dislike several of their policies, I think they are the only party that has policies worth considering.

 

[pbi]

Unfortunately, I do remember the Liberal track record.  Ultimately, for me, it's going to come down to the lesser of three evils.  If the Liberals can actually put out a platform (and keep to it), instead of simply taking the polar opposite position of whatever the CPC is saying, they'd be a viable alternative.  Until then, it's the NDP or tossing away a vote on the Greens.  The choices truly are limited...and unfortunately, I'll not be able to bring myself to consider the CPC one of them unless there is radical change from the top down.  They've swung way out past where traditional PC supporters like me reside on the spectrum.

While I would never vote NDP unless it meant staving off the Apocalypse, I generally agree with your assessment of the CPC. Yet, for some strange reason, they seem busily engaged in alienating one traditional constituency after another. The veterans situation being one example, and the rather disingenuous presentation of their "new military procurement system" being another. To blame the military for a procurement mess, when actual procurement was always done by PWGSC, and almost always meddled with by other ministries, is a bit less than honest. Ms Findlay might want to be careful of the blowback.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While I would never vote NDP unless it meant staving off the Apocalypse, I generally agree with your assessment of the CPC. Yet, for some strange reason, they seem busily engaged in alienating one traditional constituency after another. The veterans situation being one example, and the rather disingenuous presentation of their "new military procurement system" being another. To blame the military for a procurement mess, when actual procurement was always done by PWGSC, and almost always meddled with by other ministries, is a bit less than honest. Ms Findlay might want to be careful of the blowback.

They've also pissed off (on?) another group that gave them lots of support. So much support, in fact, that a large part of Chris Alexander's support, campaigning and money came from gun owners that wanted Mark Holland knocked out. Which happened by a slim margin. It is possible CA would not be in Parliament today had it not been for gun owners. The long gun registry demise was one small part of the promises made by the CPC to support gun owners. However, since that time they have turned a blind eye to incidents like High River, allowed the provincial CFOs and Crown Attorneys to run amok making up their own rules and let the RCMP reclassify and confiscate firearms that have never been a threat, to name a few. Gun owners on other forums talk openly about no longer sending them money, taking out memberships nor planning on voting for them.

It almost seems like the CPC wants to implode on purpose.

 

[Nemo888]

The CPC has already accomplished it's mission. The cuts to corporate taxes, the GST, income tax, TFSA and income splitting have reduced revenues so sharply it is irrelevant who gets elected. The cuts are inevitable now.

Letting the other guys win and waiting for the next election cycle may be the better long term strategy.

 

[DBA]

The CPC has already accomplished it's mission. The cuts to corporate taxes, the GST, income tax, TFSA and income splitting have reduced revenues so sharply it is irrelevant who gets elected. The cuts are inevitable now.

Letting the other guys win and waiting for the next election cycle may be the better long term strategy.

I don't see a reduction in overall revenue and it seems to have gone up every year except 2009. (options on the lower part of the page let you change years shown, if revenue is summed by year or listed by quarter).
Table 385-0032 Government finance statistics, statement of government operations and balance sheet

 

[a_majoor]

Since the average Canadian family spends 40%+ on taxes and fees to the various levels of Government, I'd say that if the CPC's mision was to lower taxes they have failed resoundingly....

 

[Nemo888]

I don't see a reduction in overall revenue and it seems to have gone up every year except 2009. (options on the lower part of the page let you change years shown, if revenue is summed by year or listed by quarter).
Table 385-0032 Government finance statistics, statement of government operations and balance sheet

That is a great link. I have looked for this data before and when they did the revamp of the Gov websites I could no longer find any of it.

The problem is the old tax scheme would cover much of the annual shortfall in the operating budget. We are gaining three to four hundred thousand Canadians a year, a pop growth of 1 to 1.2% a year. We are running deficits for economic stimulus of 40 to 50 billion a year and much of this turns back into tax revenue.  If you add the budget surpluses and subtract the deficits to total revenues they are growing slower than the population.  I am very curious how the budget and economy will look without deficit spending propping up the economy. Since taking power in 2006 annual expenditures have increased 31.4% while pop only increased about 7%.

The bottom line is roughly 40 billion has to be trimmed from the budget to make revenues match expenditures.

 

[DBA]

That is a great link. I have looked for this data before and when they did the revamp of the Gov websites I could no longer find any of it.

They seem to have abandoned a lot of the previous tables they made available. Search on the Statistics Canada web site under CANSIM for "government revenue" and there are several results labelled *Terminated* that were provided for decades and would be still be interesting today.