Canadian Government votes against… Science

[giallo]

It’s one of those things that you wish you hadn’t seen- like a terrible car crash that you drive past.

Today, our members of parliament debated a motion put forward by NDP Science and Technology critic, Kennedy Stewart. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House,

a) public science, basic research, and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making;

b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public;

c) the government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.

The governing conservative party cheered as they defeated the motion, 157 against to 137 for. That’s right- a majority of our parliamentarians, every single one of them conservative, voted against this motion. Want to see how your MP voted? You can find out here. Maybe they would like to explain to you why they voted the way they did.


Continued....



http://unmuzzledscience.wordpress.co...ainst-science/



I've always scoffed at the term 'America Jr.' for Canada, but with a government like this, it's actually pretty apt.

[Chadillaccc]

Fuck man... they want us back in the American dark ages.

[vid]

They were voting primarily against resuming the ELA. Drop section C and it would pass, although by a slim margin.

[SignalHillHiker]

With Penashue out, Newfoundland and Labrador is only the province that voted entirely in support.

[rousseau]

We need to vote these fuckers out. They're destroying what's great about this country.

Who the fuck are these conservative maroons? Where did they come from? How did Canada turn into this?

[davee930]

What a bunch of dumb conservative cunts. I'm sure science was involved to keep Harper's hair perfectly parallel to his eyebrows at all times.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Who the fuck are these conservative maroons? Where did they come from? How did Canada turn into this?

I too would love to know what is in the water in suburban Ontario/the West - even parts of Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Why do the voters there want this?

[jmt18325]

People don't vote on a single issue. This government, overall, has been good, just as the last government, overall, was good. As for this motion - it's meaningless, as it holds no weight anyway.

This is a Conservative government, and they're starting to act like a conservative government. Spending money in most cases will not get them voting for something going forward.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by giallo

The governing conservative party cheered as they defeated the motion, 157 against to 137 for. That’s right- a majority of our parliamentarians, every single one of them conservative, voted against this motion.

Of course they did. The Conservative Party of Canada de-funds and censors Canada's scientists -- and they are damn proud of it.

This is what our country has become: A nation of American wannabes.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

This is a Conservative government, and they're starting to act like a conservative government. Spending money in most cases will not get them voting for something going forward.

F-35 what...?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

F-35 what...?

National defence is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government...and the cost of the jets has been wildly twisted - the jets will cost only about $9B more than if we kept the jets we have and did nothing to them (and we wouldn't be able to do that)

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I too would love to know what is in the water in suburban Ontario/the West - even parts of Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Why do the voters there want this?

I suspect they don't want this; but, they are mostly low-information voters, and easily swallow big loads of Conservative rhetoric.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

This is what our country has become: A nation of American wannabes.

Yes, because not all of us agree with your political point of view, we're all American wannabes....

As I said, we're not all single issue voters, we don't all agree or disagree with everything a party does. We vote on a balance of issues.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I suspect they don't want this; but, they are mostly low-information voters, and easily swallow big loads of Conservative rhetoric.

Yes, they're all stupid - that has to be it.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

National defence is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government...and the cost of the jets has been wildly twisted - the jets will cost only about $9B more than if we kept the jets we have and did nothing to them (and we wouldn't be able to do that)

You are not a constitutional expert, as you said votes do not occur for single issues. (...Apparently only omnibus legislation, which Harper used to hate, until he was in power.)

And yes, the Conservatives have done a lot of twisting of costs. No one currently knows the actual costs because (1) the Conservatives aren't forthcoming with the numbers, and (2) there hasn't been an actual process to consider all of our military options.

The Conservative Party of Canada is a corrupt government.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Yes, they're all stupid - that has to be it.

How incredibly rude of you!

Low-information voters are not stupid, necessarily. They are lazy; they are ideologues; they are resistant toward change; they are self-concerning.

(They admire America.)

[bulliver]

Fucking ridiculous. Harper's government is doing a fantastic job of destroying what's left of out international credibility.

[bulliver]

I mean $600,000 is all it will take to maintain the Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility....only such facility in the world.

[someone123]

A vote against a motion with several parts is not necessarily a vote against every part.

Imaging a motion like this:

a) We are against the needless killing of puppies and kittens, and
b) We think pedophilia is great and should be encouraged

Would you vote for or against this motion? If you had a problem with either (a) or (b) you would vote against the motion (unless you were forced to make some kind of compromise; the Conservatives aren't in this situation) and reintroduce a new motion without the undesirable component.

[bulliver]

^ not analogous in the slightest.