tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post6722767929889681333..comments2014-12-06T08:18:59.226-05:00Comments on Martha Hall Findlay and Team: My View on Bill C-300TeamMHFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08543297633604201981noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post-66364939642582704902010-11-15T17:11:30.373-05:002010-11-15T17:11:30.373-05:00I support "ADHR"'s contribution. If ...I support "ADHR"'s contribution. If the only reason you won't reply to anonymous is that he/she is anonymous, then I repeat his/her request. I am one of your constituents and I am not anonymous.Ken Purdyenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post-42121286463931789392010-11-12T16:18:18.193-05:002010-11-12T16:18:18.193-05:00Perhaps is someone else asks for a clearer explana...Perhaps is someone else asks for a clearer explanation of the faults in the private members bill that meant that implementing it would have left the world worse off than letting if fail by not showing up. Your blog makes a principled stand but explains nothing.Brent Beachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00923975583273569484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post-22265311228040291932010-11-05T23:47:03.593-04:002010-11-05T23:47:03.593-04:00I repeat Anonymous' question. Will you answer ...I repeat Anonymous' question. Will you answer now? (That was a rather transparent dodge, by the way. Anonymous doesn't have to identify him/herself in order for the question to be worth answering. If you suspect Anonymous' motives, you do have access to IP information and should be able to make a reasonable guess as to his/her affiliations. If you don't suspect his/her motives, then there's no good reason to refuse to answer the question.)<br /><br />I seriously doubt the bill is as bad as you say. I don't know, or care, much about the issue as such, but the conduct of Liberal MPs such as yourself is getting very tired.<br /><br />In this post, for example, you say repeatedly that the bill is flawed. But, you give no detail on the flaws of the bill. It's quite striking, really, that the only basis you present here for a reader to believe the bill is bad is pure <i>argumentum pro homine</i>. This is one of the weakest forms of argument one can give -- "hey, trust me!" -- and can usually be given in a few words. But you go on for paragraphs! (Your reply to Anonymous isn't any better; you refer to the pros and cons being "well-documented", but don't actually provide this documentation -- not a link, not a reference.)<br /><br />You also didn't stay in the House and vote against the bill. This is very odd behaviour. Previously, Liberal MPs have avoided the House in order to keep from having to explicitly vote to support the Harper government. But this was a private member's bill -- nowhere near being a matter of confidence. So, if the bill was really bad, why not stand in the House and vote against it? It's hard to shake the impression that somebody got to you. If not a lobbyist, then possibly someone in the Party. Why not vote against a bill that is, as you claim to believe, flawed?ADHRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854569640217600183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post-28515430476204349752010-11-03T15:08:00.839-04:002010-11-03T15:08:00.839-04:00Dear "Anonymous",
I appreciate each per...Dear "Anonymous",<br /><br />I appreciate each person having their own opinion, but I feel very strongly about not engaging in 'debate' with people who refuse to identify themselves. The pros and cons of this Bill have been well documented. It is time now to focus on what we can do, collectively, to work toward implementation of a process more akin to the recommendations of the 2007 Advisory Group Report.Martha Hall Findlaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4676932434890771812.post-41890761506800506432010-11-02T18:40:08.389-04:002010-11-02T18:40:08.389-04:00Could you please elaborate on the "unintended...Could you please elaborate on the "unintended damage" Bill C-300 might have caused? As a measure that would be limited to restricting EDC and CPPIB funding to those Canadian companies that maintain a high CSR standard, it's not clear what damage might occur. And with the severity of some of the allegations, the abuse of human rights for individuals and whole societies might be the actual damage that will continue as a result of not passing C-300.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com