Liberal refuses to apologize for questioning Tory grants including $19K to frat house

[RedHot25]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...14951-sun.html

A Grit MLA became the first politician to be ejected from the legislature in nearly a decade yesterday when he demanded to know what "secret friends of top Tories" received more than $2 million in grants.
Edmonton-Ellerslie MLA Bharat Agnihotri was turfed by Speaker Ken Kowalski for refusing to apologize for impugning the integrity of the premier and leadership contenders in his cabinet.

.....

Agnihotri was grilling Culture Minister Hector Goudreau over why the province doled out 43 non-matched grants between 2003 and 2005 that exceeded the government's $10,000 limit.
"I simply said the government has broken its own rules. I want to know why."

......

Agnihotri also referred to an $18,760 grant to a University of Alberta women's fraternity house.
Sun Media has learned the 2004 grant application was filed by the daughter of Tory insider Gord Rosko.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Agnihotri also referred to an $18,760 grant to a University of Alberta women's fraternity house.
Sun Media has learned the 2004 grant application was filed by the daughter of Tory insider Gord Rosko.

Wait, they aren't sorority houses anymore?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wait, they aren't sorority houses anymore?

Apparently they're different. I thought the same thing during my first Club Week at U of C. "We're a fraternity for girls" was the tagline. A brotherhood for girls, huh?

[Agamemnon]

Thats wierd... the opposition isn't allowed to ask where public money goes? Don't they ask these questions all the time in federal Parliament?

[llama64]

So the MLA was ejected for doing his job? Or is there more to this story such as Mr. Agnihotri throwing obscenities at those being questioned?

Not really surprised given that the Tories can do whatever they want in Alberta without fear from the voters.

At a federal level, wasn't alot of the Conservative rhetoric along the lines of honest and accountability in the financial funding area?

[RedHot25]

Well all we have at the momment is this article to go on. So from the article...

An unrepentant Agnihotri told reporters outside the chamber that he won't immediately apologize because he thinks his question was valid.
"The government always claims it's transparent and honest and accountable. This is a question of government accountability."
Agnihotri will lose his $74,735 MLA salary until he agrees to apologize and is granted permission to return to the House.

....

But he got into trouble with the Speaker when he demanded to know if the funds went to Tories who made anonymous donations to the leadership campaigns of Premier Ed Stelmach, Finance Minister Lyle Oberg, Health Minister Dave Han and Sustainable Resources Minister Ted Morton.

....

Kowalski gave Agnihotri three chances to apologize before ordering him to leave the House.

[SeeGeeWhy]

19K for a female fraternity? Hopefully the gov't can pull a profit by selling webcam feeds live over the internet.

www.conservativesgoneliberal.ca

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by llama64

So the MLA was ejected for doing his job? Or is there more to this story such as Mr. Agnihotri throwing obscenities at those being questioned?

From what I heard on the news; it wasn't a case of saying "Can the minister tell us where that money went and why." (Which is his job) It was something like "Why is there no accountability for the minister being a thief."

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

From what I heard on the news; it wasn't a case of saying "Can the minister tell us where that money went and why." (Which is his job) It was something like "Why is there no accountability for the minister being a thief."

I still don't see what he did wrong though... I thought MP's/MLA's were allowed to say anything they wanted in parliament with immunity from prosecution? I guess that doesn't protect them from being summarily kicked out of the House by the Speaker? Seems pretty arbitrary to me when an elected official can be removed from his position like this, even temporarily... especially when he's asking (rudely or not) about where public money is going.

[calculoso]

"I still don't see what he did wrong"

Directly accusing someone of being a thief (and using those words) is still against parliamentry rules.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by calculoso

"I still don't see what he did wrong"

Directly accusing someone of being a thief (and using those words) is still against parliamentry rules.

I agree.

But with that in mind, shouldn't "Honest" Ed open this issue up to scrutiny? If it now gets buried it is going to look bad, even if nothing wrong is being done.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I agree.

But with that in mind, shouldn't "Honest" Ed open this issue up to scrutiny? If it now gets buried it is going to look bad, even if nothing wrong is being done.

Legally, sounds like the MLA is in violation.

Politically, unless the tories open it up, they could draw a lot of flack and tarnish their credibility. Should be interesting to see how this situation is handled by Ed's goverment.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by llama64

Legally, sounds like the MLA is in violation.

Politically, unless the tories open it up, they could draw a lot of flack and tarnish their credibility. Should be interesting to see how this situation is handled by Ed's goverment.

First it has to be on the front page of the paper...otherwise 90% of the people will never even know about it.

[Agamemnon]

I guess I'd have to see the rulebook where calling another MLA a theif of public funds is 'against the rules' and results in expulsion from the Legislature. Against decorum, fair enough... but its an offense that is so serious it results in an elected official being temporarily removed from office? Seems like parliamentary procedure is actively trumping democracy here.

If the Con's are innocent, why not just make the guy look like a fool by showing he's wrong in implicating them of corruption? Wouldn't that be a more effective defence than expelling him? Makes them look bad, imo.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess I'd have to see the rulebook where calling another MLA a liar is 'against the rules' and results in expulsion from the Legislature.

If the Con's are innocent, why not just make the guy look like a fool by showing he's wrong in implicating them of corruption? Wouldn't that be a more effective defence than expelling him? Makes them look bad, imo.

He didn't call him a liar, he called him a thief, and that's slander. Whether in the ledge or not, buddy could get sued over it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

He didn't call him a liar, he called him a thief, and that's slander. Whether in the ledge or not, buddy could get sued over it.

Sure, if this was a civil/domestic situation that would be fine... but he's accusing a sitting MLA of misdirecting public funds for personal use/contacts ('stealing' it). The right thing to do is suspend the MLA who brought up the issue? Should anyone bother to investigate the claim?

Anyone actually interested on whether or not the Con MLA is guilty?

[calculoso]

From:
The Citizen's Guide to the Alberta Legislature
Part III: Rules and Traditions (Continued...)
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/Part3/page9.htm

The Constitution also calls for Canada's adoption of British parliamentary traditions. The most important of these is parliamentary privilege, meaning that members of an Assembly have certain privileges that are necessary for them to do their job, such as the freedom of speech. Members cannot be sued or prosecuted for what they say in the Assembly, even if they say something defamatory.

Members can raise a question of privilege if they feel their privileges are not being respected or that another member has abused a privilege; for example, by slandering a fellow member. If the Speaker thinks a breach of privilege may have taken place, the Assembly may turn the matter over to a committee or take action itself to discipline the offender.

The Speaker may rule a member out of order for breaking the Assembly's rules during debate or Oral Question Period or decide whether a member may have abused parliamentary privilege. Speakers' past rulings on these and other matters form the precedents that guide modern parliamentary practice.

More recently, Alberta Speakers have ruled that a member may not call a fellow member a “coward,” a “half-wit,” or a “liar.”

If calling someone a 'liar' is unacceptable, it isn't a stretch to think that calling someone a 'thief' would be unacceptable too.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure, if this was a civil/domestic situation that would be fine... but he's accusing a sitting MLA of misdirecting public funds for personal use/contacts ('stealing' it). The right thing to do is suspend the MLA who brought up the issue? Should anyone bother to investigate the claim?

Anyone actually interested on whether or not the Con MLA is guilty?

Of course I'm interesting in finding it out.... but at the same time, that wasn't why this was brought up in the first place.

There are rules in parliament that the MLAs need to follow. This Liberal didn't and was punished for it.

The Conservative MLA actions are a completely different and separate issue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess I'd have to see the rulebook where calling another MLA a theif of public funds is 'against the rules' and results in expulsion from the Legislature. Against decorum, fair enough... but its an offense that is so serious it results in an elected official being temporarily removed from office? Seems like parliamentary procedure is actively trumping democracy here.

MLAs are required to perform their jobs in a certain manner, just like every other employee on earth. While he is immune from prosecution for what he says in the Legislature, if he breaks the rules of the house, he suffers the consequences. It is nobody's fault but his own that he chose to broke the rules, and it is nobody's fault but his own that he refused to apologize for his wording, even after three opportunities to do so.

This MLA's behaviour is a separate issue from the funding controversy. Until he corrects his behaviour, he is the only one who is denying his own consituents their voice.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Of course I'm interesting in finding it out.... but at the same time, that wasn't why this was brought up in the first place.

There are rules in parliament that the MLAs need to follow. This Liberal didn't and was punished for it.

The Conservative MLA actions are a completely different and separate issue.

Right... one issue we seem concerned with (an MLA breaking the rules of procedure/decorum/whatever), and one that we don't seem to be (an MLA may have funneled public monies for private ends). I guess it just seems odd that the focus is on the guy who raised the issue (regardless of how rude he was... lots of easily hurt feelings in the Legislature?) rather than the potential corruption.