madmax Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Simple straw poll... Lets see if the MLW punters get it right again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Simple straw poll... Lets see if the MLW punters get it right again There are not enough options. You should add "Will Parliament find her in contempt?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 There are not enough options. You should add "Will Parliament find her in contempt?" Would that lead to a Forced Resignation ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Where the "I don't know" and "Other" options? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Where the "I don't know" and "Other" options? If you think there is something "Other" then post the "Other" Choice. I don't know what "other" thing could happen. Either she will keep her job or she won't. But if there is some "Other" outcome can come up with ... then let us know what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Would that lead to a Forced Resignation ? Not in and of itself. Oda could be even be expelled from the House, but Parliament has no power to force the PM to remove her from Cabinet. In normal circumstances, simply finding her in contempt, without any explicit punishments, would be enough to convince her to resign or the PM to remove her from Cabinet, but these do not appear to be normal circumstances, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper insisted she remain in Cabinet even if she wasn't allowed to sit in the House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thanks.... In hindsight... I would have done as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 'forced resignation is both an oxymoron and quite unusual in politics. It is always couched in nice words, and appears to be the resignees idea. She should quit though, not for her decision which is entirely hers to make, but for the lie about not knowing who made the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 IF the speaker says that Parliament has to vote on the solution, as Oda being in contempt of Parliament, she's gone. Today, Layton went to see Harper for a 40 minute lets make a deal. Jack want increase in GIS, changes to CPP, HST off heating fuels and some other things. The polls show Canadians won't like what ODA has done and how Harper is defending her. Harper now has to decide do I make a deal with the NDP or take a chance and go for an election. Jack has to GET some back something BIG from Harper or the NDP will lose vote for the NDPs that want Harper gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 IF the speaker says that Parliament has to vote on the solution, as Oda being in contempt of Parliament, she's gone. Today, Layton went to see Harper for a 40 minute lets make a deal. Jack want increase in GIS, changes to CPP, HST off heating fuels and some other things. The polls show Canadians won't like what ODA has done and how Harper is defending her. Harper now has to decide do I make a deal with the NDP or take a chance and go for an election. Jack has to GET some back something BIG from Harper or the NDP will lose vote for the NDPs that want Harper gone. The problem with is that the NDP can't give Harper enough votes to guarantee passage, unless either enough Bloc or Liberal MPs abstain from the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 The polls show Canadians won't like what ODA has done and how Harper is defending her. Cite please. Harper now has to decide do I make a deal with the NDP or take a chance and go for an election. Hmm. There's the small matter as to whether the NDP wants an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 'forced resignation is both an oxymoron and quite unusual in politics. It is always couched in nice words, and appears to be the resignees idea. She should quit though, not for her decision which is entirely hers to make, but for the lie about not knowing who made the decision. The time for that kind of "thank you very much for your dedicated service and mind your step as we push you out the window" resignation seems to be rapidly coming to an end. The only thing I can think of for the Tories even wanting time to respond to the Opposition charges is perhaps that there may be some members of caucus who are not quite champions of the Minister as Harper has declared himself to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 The problem with is that the NDP can't give Harper enough votes to guarantee passage, unless either enough Bloc or Liberal MPs abstain from the vote. R you sure about that? Its been my understanding that the Conservatives have only ever required one party on board to get any bill passed. I thought they were roughly 12 seats shy and the NDP, has 39 seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Hmm. There's the small matter as to whether the NDP wants an election. The NDP never want an election. Their MPs are always vulnerable and the NDP have always believed they can get more done in the house then in an election. But the NDP doesn't support any government without the government supporting the NDP on some issue. Thus if there isn't anything on the table, the NDP have never hesitated to vote against the government. And if there is nothing on the table, the NDP won't support a government even if it means going to the polls. THe NDP watch the polls like any other party, but it doesn't seem to affect their decisions. The pundits and media alway say that... "oh it doesn't look good for the NDP in the polls". Well for a party with a range of 15 to 20% support that is their traditional range. I think the NDP were at 13% in the 2008 election and came out with 17 or 18% support. I don't believe the NDP has asked for HUGE things. They have asked for changes to current programs. This is hardly in the realm of Douglas and Lewis who brought in Health Care or Fira. These were totally new programs. I also don't think that this meeting has anything to do with Bev Oda issue. All party leaders normally meet with Prime MInister before the budget and normally the Prime Minister humours them then blows them off. Returning back to ODA. Thats a separate issue that doesn't look like its going away soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 R you sure about that? Its been my understanding that the Conservatives have only ever required one party on board to get any bill passed. I thought they were roughly 12 seats shy and the NDP, has 39 seats. You're quite right. Brain fart there for a moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/images/6.gif apparently Osama Bin Laden is "Absolutely" suppose to be found too. Edited February 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I voted no because Harper thinks Canadians are stupid. Who knows, maybe they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Very close poll so far. Its Too close to Call. Lets see if more votes come in before the iron cools. I believe this issue is going to fade after this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Very close poll so far. Its Too close to Call. Lets see if more votes come in before the iron cools. I believe this issue is going to fade after this weekend. If it fades, it's because Parliament's out. The Speaker will return with his decision after the Government supplies their explanation and then it will light up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peterb Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Further to comment that Oda changed her story http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bev-oda-speaks-but-not-on-kairos/article1912170/ "During a committee appearance in December, Ms. Oda said she did not know who put in the word “not” on the Kairos funding proposal that had been approved by her officials. This week, she changed her story, saying that she had provided the direction for the insertion of the word." Her answer was rather simple in that she didn't know the "who" by name which is understandable. She didn't didn't know who wrote in the word "not" - she wasn't present. The question wasn't who was responsible for refusing the funding for Kairos because Liberals aren't smart enough to formulate a simple question and they want to run a country - forget it. Maybe the Minister wouldn't be called "evasive" if they asked a proper question. However to say she "changed her story" is a misrepresentation and can not stand the test of scrutiny, because back in December 2010 , at the same meeting that Oda testified at, Margaret Biggs President of CIDA told the committee, Oda was responsible for the change, and had every right to make the change, so it was established back in December Oda was responsible for rejecting the Kairos funding. Now in February her statement that "she had provided the direction for the insertion of the word" is only an acknowledgment of what was determined back in December, by the committee, and there is no change in the substance of the story or position that can be attributed to Oda. Margaret Biggs testimony at December meeting before committee “I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal,” she told the foreign affairs committee.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Thanks....In hindsight... I would have done as you suggest. Madmax, you got it right in the OP.However worded, the question is whether she will quit/leave/resign/be kicked out of Cabinet/caucus or not. And there are only two answers: Yes or No. Edited February 20, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.gee Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 oda's days are probably coming to an end. the conservatives are hoping this issue will be forgotten over the break this week, but i don't see it going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 oda's days are probably coming to an end. the conservatives are hoping this issue will be forgotten over the break this week, but i don't see it going anywhere. Even if it is forgotten, there's still the Speaker's ruling, and if the Speaker sides with the Opposition, a whole new circus. If I were Harper, I'd basically be telling Oda "Bev, go back to your constituency, search your heart, then come back and quit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Even if it is forgotten, there's still the Speaker's ruling, and if the Speaker sides with the Opposition, a whole new circus. If I were Harper, I'd basically be telling Oda "Bev, go back to your constituency, search your heart, then come back and quit." Even if the speaker did rule Oda in contempt, I fully expect Harper to ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Even if the speaker did rule Oda in contempt, I fully expect Harper to ignore it. I don't think you quite understand how this works. The Speaker will not rule that Oda is in contempt, he will rule that her actions were a breach, and then it would be referred to the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which will ultimately decide whether it is referred to the House for a vote. It is Parliament, not the Government, that decides whether anyone is to be found in Contempt of Parliament. As part of that motion will be whether there is anything beyond a simple vote (ie. basically a sort of public outing with no Parliamentary sanctions or punishments) right on to expulsion from the House. It's not Harper's place to ignore this. Let's remember here, folks, that Harper is just the Prime Minister. I know, in this age of all-powerful PMOs, that it's hard to put the PM's powers in perspective, but he is not the boss of the House, and in a minority situation, he can do little else if the Committee opts to recommend a vote in the House on the breach of privilege than to protest. He cannot overrule Parliament, which is supreme over the Government. He has the power to retain Oda as Minister, because our constitution does not require that a Minister be an MP or Senator in good standing, or even be a member of either House at all (although having Ministers who are not a member of Parliament is extremely rare in the modern Westminster system), so at the end of the day he can go on as business as usual so far as the executive functions go, but it would be a rather strange situation to have a Minister forbidden from the House having to go through proxies. So Harper cannot just ignore the Speaker or Parliament. He is, after all, just the Prime Minister. He is not the Queen, he is not the Governor General, and he is certainly subordinate in all things to Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.