Will Stephen Harper resign over the Senate scandal?

[g_bambino]

Not technically no. It's no. Full stop. Wallin, Brazeau, and Duffy now realize that he can't do anything to them. The party whip can try to get the Conservative senators to all vote together a particular way, but they are by no means required to... Harper has no authority over Senators. There's literally nothing he can do to them that would be of any consequence.

It's true he has no direct way of removing a senator or docking their pay or inflicting some other punishment upon them. But, jacee is right in that that won't stop him from trying to get as many senators as is needed to agree that removing the disgraced three is the best course of action. He can attempt to do that either by trying to make a convincing argument that suspending the senators is the right thing to do, or he can make threats. However, for the latter to work, the senators he'd be threatening would have to be so dumb as to believe that Harper actually has some sort of control over their futures. Evidently some Conservative senators understand that isn't true and, even after agreeing in camera with Harper that Brazeau, Wallin, and Duffy should be suspended, are now saying the way that end is being achieved is wrong--ie. a denial of due process--and are talking about voting against the motion as worded. Others, though, seem to just be the kind who ask 'how high?' when Harper says 'jump!'.

[Topaz]

On the weekend, I was watching the former speaking in a debate on government and he said that if a party was unhappy with the leader that they only needed 60% agreement and they could leave that party and start another. So I guess that means if Tory party rates go low like GW Bush's, and the possibility of wiping out the Conservatives, then McKay could leave and re-start the PC if he has 60%. Then Harper can go work in some bar singing. "Yesterday".

[AlienB]

What and risk going to jail as a regular person?

Being PM has percs like being very difficult to throw in jail.

[g_bambino]

Being PM has percs like being very difficult to throw in jail.

Uh, no. The prime minister can be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted just like anyone else.

[Topaz]

Anyone see QP today. The PM Par. Sec. isn't doing Harper any favours with his nasty answers and attacks on anyone that ask a question. The Tory Mp was out of control and isn't doing himself any favours either by some of his attacks and I think some went over the line and definitely off topic but I guess that was one does when there is no answers left . The guy was just nasty, hollering, I just had to turn the channel, worse I've seen yet.

[cybercoma]

I hope they keep it up. Canadians want answers and accountability. So ducking answers and attacking other MPs and parties, instead of addressing the issues, makes them look worse and worse each day.

[On Guard for Thee]

Aw come on guys, don't you just hang on every word of those family stories Calandra spins as he tries to divert your attentioin from the actual question?

Cute I suppose but aint nobody buying it. Anyway it turns out that papers filed today by the RCMP bring them a fair bit closer to Harper. Just a matter of time I suspect before the walls come tumblin' down.

[Argus]

Anyone see QP today. The PM Par. Sec. isn't doing Harper any favours with his nasty answers and attacks on anyone that ask a question. The Tory Mp was out of control and isn't doing himself any favours either by some of his attacks and I think some went over the line and definitely off topic but I guess that was one does when there is no answers left . The guy was just nasty, hollering, I just had to turn the channel, worse I've seen yet.

Actually, I was wondering who that guy was. He seemed to be handling himself very well.

[PIK]

Anyone see QP today. The PM Par. Sec. isn't doing Harper any favours with his nasty answers and attacks on anyone that ask a question. The Tory Mp was out of control and isn't doing himself any favours either by some of his attacks and I think some went over the line and definitely off topic but I guess that was one does when there is no answers left . The guy was just nasty, hollering, I just had to turn the channel, worse I've seen yet.

Everyone is tired of the same questions over and over, they have been answered over and over. And if your ilk want to keep it up, you will pay the price.

[cybercoma]

Everyone is tired of the same questions over and over, they have been answered over and over. And if your ilk want to keep it up, you will pay the price.

Pesky questions. They always get in the way of governments that have little accountability.

[g_bambino]

Everyone is tired of the same questions over and over, they have been answered over and over.

Of course they have; every time the same question is asked, a different answer's given. It's like roulette: fun!

[Topaz]

Today, the Liberals are bringing forward a motion to have the PM appear before a Parl. Committee, under oath and tell what he knows. Of course, it won't pass because the Tories have more votes. However, it will make Tory MP's have to answer to their constituents, why they voted no. On Yahoo.ca, they asked the question , should the PM appear before committee under oath and out of the 6869 who voted 80% said yes., that more then showed up at the Tory convention.

[Smallc]

Who cares what an online poll says?

[Topaz]

Who cares what an online poll says?

Well, I guess you don't but they are voters too and it does give one an idea how people think.

[Smallc]

It doesn't give one any idea of anything.

[On Guard for Thee]

Today, the Liberals are bringing forward a motion to have the PM appear before a Parl. Committee, under oath and tell what he knows. Of course, it won't pass because the Tories have more votes. However, it will make Tory MP's have to answer to their constituents, why they voted no. On Yahoo.ca, they asked the question , should the PM appear before committee under oath and out of the 6869 who voted 80% said yes., that more then showed up at the Tory convention.

Can you imagine the fun we'd have if it did pass? Harper having to tell the truth under threat of prosecution.

[g_bambino]

Can you imagine the fun we'd have if it did pass? Harper having to tell the truth under threat of prosecution.

A motion isn't binding.

[Keepitsimple]

Can you imagine the fun we'd have if it did pass? Harper having to tell the truth under threat of prosecution.

Would you or Topaz believe him if he testified under oath? Would you then put the matter to rest? Yes or no would be helpful.

[Topaz]

Would you or Topaz believe him if he testified under oath? Would you then put the matter to rest? Yes or no would be helpful.

Well, I'd believe 50% more than I do now because I'd know that if he was telling a lie and it came out down the road, he would be punished, by saying it in the House, he can tell all kinds of lies and there no penalty.

[Topaz]

let me ask you Harper supporters, do you believe Martin was right in calling for a investigation into the Adscam, that his party was being accused of???? If yes, then shouldn't Harper?? Or is there a double standard?

[Smallc]

There is an investigation into this....that's why we have police forces. What Martin did needlessly cosy him his job.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Smallc

[bleeding heart]

My prediction--or guess, if you prefer--is that Harper will announce a national Referendum on the idea of an elected Senate. (I don't think abolishing it is in the cards). This will nicely position him as father of Senate Reform....and possibly dilute memories of his own part in the scandal, if this turns out to be the case.

[g_bambino]

My prediction--or guess, if you prefer--is that Harper will announce a national Referendum on the idea of an elected Senate.

What's the point of that until the Supreme Court has clarified what's constitutionally necessary to make such changes to the Senate? And, even then, an actual election process has to be spelled out to voters in a referendum; it can't simply be "Do you want an elected Senate, yes or no?"

[Smallc]

What's the point of that until the Supreme Court has clarified what's constitutionally necessary to make such changes to the Senate?

Do you think that we can use the Quebec Court of Appeal ruling to give us an idea?

[g_bambino]

Do you think that we can use the Quebec Court of Appeal ruling to give us an idea?

I do. And I suspect the Supreme Court will look at it, too. But, it's ultimately the latter's call as to what has to be done to reform/abolish the Senate.