Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Liberals lose another one


AD

Recommended Posts

Democracy is retarded

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has expelled former cabinet minister Joe Comuzzi from the party's caucus because he plans to support the Conservative government's budget.

"He's not anymore part of the caucus," Dion said Wednesday after a caucus meeting. He said he had spoken with the Thunder Bay, Ont., MP who confirmed he would vote for the budget.

Dion said it was parliamentary tradition for MPs to follow party line on confidence votes such as budgets.

"A vote on the budget, like a vote on a throne speech, is a vote of confidence. You cannot vote against the caucus on it."

"He's well aware, after 19 years in the House, of the consequences of what he's doing," Dion said.

Comuzzi had told a local newspaper that he's supporting the budget because it contains funding for a molecular cancer research centre that employs 300 people in his riding.

Continue Article

Comuzzi, 73, will now sit as an Independent, leaving the Liberals with 100 MPs, the Conservatives with 125, the Bloc Québécois with 50 and the New Democrats with 29. There is one other Independent MP and two seats are vacant.

The Liberals and NDP have indicated they will vote against the budget, released Monday.

However, the budget will likely pass — thus avoiding the triggering of an election — because the Bloc has indicated it will back Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's fiscal plan.

Comuzzi is not planning to run in the next election.

This decision to support the budget was not the first time Comuzzi took an open stand against his party.

Two years ago, under the government of then prime minister Paul Martin, he resigned from cabinet over the Liberals' same-sex marriage bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that a MP should be able to vote against their "party lines" and should only do so in the interests of their constituents. With the little bit of detail given here, i'd want some further reasoning than this:

Comuzzi had told a local newspaper that he's supporting the budget because it contains funding for a molecular cancer research centre that employs 300 people in his riding.

Continue Article

OK, so he has deduced that the budget should be fully supported based on one portion of it that relates to one industry in his entire riding and how it affects 300 jobs? Now, I understand that the effects will spread beyond those 300 within the community, but, would SUPPORTING the budget mean that in his riding a much smaller number of people could be dramatically hit by any of its ramifications?

Two years ago, under the government of then prime minister Paul Martin, he resigned from cabinet over the Liberals' same-sex marriage bill.

In this case, I would want to know if Comuzzi resigned because he "personally" didn't believe/support same-sex couples' rights, and then abandon those constituents that voted for him to represent them? Or, did he resign because there was a majority within his riding that vehemently opposed that bill? (which would mean he truly was representing his people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, I would want to know if Comuzzi resigned because he "personally" didn't believe/support same-sex couples' rights, and then abandon those constituents that voted for him to represent them? Or, did he resign because there was a majority within his riding that vehemently opposed that bill? (which would mean he truly was representing his people)

I would imagine it was his personal belief, as otherwise he would have simply voted against the bill. If he's got the balls to vote against the party now, I would guess that he had them then, too. Note though that he resigned from the Cabinet, not from the party, which isn't quite the same thing as "abandoning" his constituents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case' date=' I would want to know if Comuzzi resigned because he "personally" didn't believe/support same-sex couples' rights, and then abandon those constituents that voted for him to represent them? Or, did he resign because there was a majority within his riding that vehemently opposed that bill? (which would mean he truly was representing his people)[/quote']

I would imagine it was his personal belief, as otherwise he would have simply voted against the bill. If he's got the balls to vote against the party now, I would guess that he had them then, too. Note though that he resigned from the Cabinet, not from the party, which isn't quite the same thing as "abandoning" his constituents.

Now if he did resign due to his personal beliefs, I'd be pissed-off if I had voted him into office. Regardless of his beliefs, he's been appointed by the people to represent THEM not HIM. I respect that he resigned, but why the fuck would people vote him back in again?

Edited by Guest
Department of Rendundancy Department request
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if he did resign due to his personal beliefs, I'd be pissed-off if I had voted him into office. Regardless of his beliefs, he's been appointed by the people to represent THEM not HIM. I respect that he resigned, but why the fuÇk would people vote him back in again?

I think as a constituent you vote a person in because you respect his beliefs and where he stands on political issues. I wouldn't have a problem at all if my MP resigned because the direction he wanted politics to go differed from that of the party. I'd be the exact opposite of "pissed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think as a constituent you vote a person in because you respect his beliefs and where he stands on political issues.

As a constituent' date=' you can vote for a person if you like that they fuck appliances.

[/quote']

... and are fluent German speaking, active members at the First Church of Appliantology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...