![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Anna's Handy Dandy Guide to A Canadian Federal Election Part 2: C Words Are Scary
What prompted these posts was ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_future_modernes linking to an article by Reuters that basically indicated the author had no idea what was going on in Canada, but thought it was important to report on.
I am going to totally crib from Wikipedia because someone over there has a much clearer writing style than I do, but I will put some explanations in.
If I am following what happened properly, the international aid group KAIROS saw its funding cut drastically in 2009. This was a bit odd to everyone involved, because the funding had actually been approved by the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, that makes such decisions, and then passed on to Oda to sign off on as the Minister who does such things. Looking at the document, someone, someplace, had inserted a handwritten "not" before the "approved".
A few people started coming up with "reasons" why KAIROS's funding was cut. I have no opinion on the reasons themselves - reasons is in scare quotes because the reasons varied whenever people were called on them. At first the reason given was that the government had decided to do things more effectively. Then the reason was that KAIROS was anti-Semitic because it took a "leadership" role in sanctions against Israel. When it turned out that KAIROS had made a public pledge in 2007 against advocating for boycotts or sanctions against Israel, the reason became that it didn't meet the CIDA priorities. This seems to be the one that everyone stuck with afterward.
Which I suppose would be fine except no one at CIDA put that "not" in there. CIDA had approved the funding. This, as you can imagine, becomes a Thing, and an investigation began during which various people went "Oops."
The investigation was mostly concerned about whether or not Oda and her staff misled parliament with their comments about the situation. "Misled" in this case is a euphemism for lying, but we can't call politicians liars in Canada.
CBC timeline.
Oda case comes down to confusion vs contempt.
Contempt debate before MPs again
What I'm understanding this to be about is: The Government said "We're going to have a tough-on-crime bill where we build prisons to house people who commit unreported crimes" (and then Stockwell Day was no longer allowed to talk to Reporters, the end). It also said it was going to buy F-35 fighter jets.
Opposition MPs said "And, pray tell, how much will these things cost?"
And the Government said "Ha, like we're going to tell you that. We're the government!We rule the evil league of evil with an iron hoof!"
And this was investigated and eventually ruled as being in contempt of Parliament.
The opposition got their acts together, Ignatieff tabled a vote of non-confidence, the NDP & the Bloc Quebecois supported him, and thus we are here in this election.
In Contempt of Parliament and the Harper Government
Committee finds Tories in Contempt for Stonewalling on Crime Bill Costs (Tories is a slang term for Conservatives. Grits is a slang term for Liberals. Dippers is a slang term for NDP.)
Yes, Contempt of Parliament Does Matter
Concerning Milliken's first ruling, on March 18, 2011, opposition members of parliament said they still thought Oda was in contempt of parliament, despite her testimony that day, however the committee process never proceeded far enough to find Oda in contempt.
Okay, so, what is this whole Coalition Thing?
The way a minority government works is that they don't have enough seats to hold power within the the House - they can be voted down by everyone else getting together and saying "Forget it, we hate you." This doesn't always lead to an election, but it can. It can also lead to the Governor General asking the leader of the opposition if he has the confidence of the House. If he does, he can run the government for a while, with a coalition of other parties. You can see how this works if you look at things in the UK, and I believe Australia often runs on coalition governments. I understand they're quite fashionable in Europe.
I also understand that if you are Stephen Harper, they are so 2004. See, Harper, who is currently (and in 2009) going on about how Coalitions are bad and wrong especially if you are forming them with "Separatists and Socialists" thought a coalition with exactly those people was just peachy-keen back in 2004. Gilles Duceppe (of the Bloc Quebecois) has a letter that Harper signed in 2004 with Duceppe and Jack Layton (of the NDP) in 2004 to form a coalition government against the then-minority government lead by the Liberals.
But forming a coalition with separatists and socialists is bad.
Yes, at the protests in 2009, I carried a sign saying "Shorter Harper: It's okay if you're a Conservative." No one at the rally got it, and I was very sad.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has explicitly ruled out a coalition. He did it the second day of the campaign. NDP leader Jack Layton, last I checked, kept letting everyone know he was a keener on a coalition. Gilles Duceppe, bless his wee cotton socks, just keeps trolling everyone with his evidence that Harper is a liar who will disavow his former allies to get ahead.
Harper, of course, keeps calling Ignatieff the "leader of the coalition". Because he's cool that way. And for reason that escape me, the idea of a coalition really pisses the Conservative base off.
I keep wondering if it would have pissed them off in 2004, too.
I am posting this mere moments before I spent the rest of the day holed up at the library pretending there is no election, so any errors that need to be fixed will, sadly, need to wait until evening or even tomorrow. My apologies. :(
I also know I promised a Rick Mercer video but it's not nearly as relevant as I remember it being.
the_future_modernes linking to an article by Reuters that basically indicated the author had no idea what was going on in Canada, but thought it was important to report on.I am going to totally crib from Wikipedia because someone over there has a much clearer writing style than I do, but I will put some explanations in.
On March 9, 2011, Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons Peter Milliken made two rulings on contempt of parliament: The first found that a Conservative Party cabinet minister, Bev Oda, could possibly be in contempt of Parliament.
If I am following what happened properly, the international aid group KAIROS saw its funding cut drastically in 2009. This was a bit odd to everyone involved, because the funding had actually been approved by the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, that makes such decisions, and then passed on to Oda to sign off on as the Minister who does such things. Looking at the document, someone, someplace, had inserted a handwritten "not" before the "approved".
A few people started coming up with "reasons" why KAIROS's funding was cut. I have no opinion on the reasons themselves - reasons is in scare quotes because the reasons varied whenever people were called on them. At first the reason given was that the government had decided to do things more effectively. Then the reason was that KAIROS was anti-Semitic because it took a "leadership" role in sanctions against Israel. When it turned out that KAIROS had made a public pledge in 2007 against advocating for boycotts or sanctions against Israel, the reason became that it didn't meet the CIDA priorities. This seems to be the one that everyone stuck with afterward.
Which I suppose would be fine except no one at CIDA put that "not" in there. CIDA had approved the funding. This, as you can imagine, becomes a Thing, and an investigation began during which various people went "Oops."
The investigation was mostly concerned about whether or not Oda and her staff misled parliament with their comments about the situation. "Misled" in this case is a euphemism for lying, but we can't call politicians liars in Canada.
CBC timeline.
Oda case comes down to confusion vs contempt.
Contempt debate before MPs again
The second ruling found the Cabinet could possibly be in contempt of parliament for not meeting opposition members of parliament's requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates, an issue which had "been dragging on since the fall of 2010."
What I'm understanding this to be about is: The Government said "We're going to have a tough-on-crime bill where we build prisons to house people who commit unreported crimes" (and then Stockwell Day was no longer allowed to talk to Reporters, the end). It also said it was going to buy F-35 fighter jets.
Opposition MPs said "And, pray tell, how much will these things cost?"
And the Government said "Ha, like we're going to tell you that. We're the government!
And this was investigated and eventually ruled as being in contempt of Parliament.
The opposition got their acts together, Ignatieff tabled a vote of non-confidence, the NDP & the Bloc Quebecois supported him, and thus we are here in this election.
In Contempt of Parliament and the Harper Government
Committee finds Tories in Contempt for Stonewalling on Crime Bill Costs (Tories is a slang term for Conservatives. Grits is a slang term for Liberals. Dippers is a slang term for NDP.)
Yes, Contempt of Parliament Does Matter
Concerning Milliken's first ruling, on March 18, 2011, opposition members of parliament said they still thought Oda was in contempt of parliament, despite her testimony that day, however the committee process never proceeded far enough to find Oda in contempt.
Concerning Milliken's second ruling, on March 21, 2011 the committee tabled a report which found the Conservative Party in contempt of parliament. As such, a motion of no confidence was filed against the government. On March 25, 2011, Members of Parliament voted on a Liberal motion of no confidence finding the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament, passing by a margin of 156 to 145. This is the first time a Canadian Government has fallen on Contempt of Parliament, and marks a first for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of fifty-four states.
Okay, so, what is this whole Coalition Thing?
The way a minority government works is that they don't have enough seats to hold power within the the House - they can be voted down by everyone else getting together and saying "Forget it, we hate you." This doesn't always lead to an election, but it can. It can also lead to the Governor General asking the leader of the opposition if he has the confidence of the House. If he does, he can run the government for a while, with a coalition of other parties. You can see how this works if you look at things in the UK, and I believe Australia often runs on coalition governments. I understand they're quite fashionable in Europe.
I also understand that if you are Stephen Harper, they are so 2004. See, Harper, who is currently (and in 2009) going on about how Coalitions are bad and wrong especially if you are forming them with "Separatists and Socialists" thought a coalition with exactly those people was just peachy-keen back in 2004. Gilles Duceppe (of the Bloc Quebecois) has a letter that Harper signed in 2004 with Duceppe and Jack Layton (of the NDP) in 2004 to form a coalition government against the then-minority government lead by the Liberals.
But forming a coalition with separatists and socialists is bad.
Yes, at the protests in 2009, I carried a sign saying "Shorter Harper: It's okay if you're a Conservative." No one at the rally got it, and I was very sad.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has explicitly ruled out a coalition. He did it the second day of the campaign. NDP leader Jack Layton, last I checked, kept letting everyone know he was a keener on a coalition. Gilles Duceppe, bless his wee cotton socks, just keeps trolling everyone with his evidence that Harper is a liar who will disavow his former allies to get ahead.
Harper, of course, keeps calling Ignatieff the "leader of the coalition". Because he's cool that way. And for reason that escape me, the idea of a coalition really pisses the Conservative base off.
I keep wondering if it would have pissed them off in 2004, too.
I am posting this mere moments before I spent the rest of the day holed up at the library pretending there is no election, so any errors that need to be fixed will, sadly, need to wait until evening or even tomorrow. My apologies. :(
I also know I promised a Rick Mercer video but it's not nearly as relevant as I remember it being.