MPs Denounce Motion To Study When Life Begins

CBC  |  Posted: 04/26/2012 7:36 pm Updated: 05/09/2012 9:09 pm

International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is now reimbursing taxpayers for the car and driver she hired during a trip abroad after saying earlier in the week that she had paid back all of the "inappropriate costs."


Her office did not confirm the exact amount that Oda is paying back for the car rental in London, England, last summer, but CBC has confirmed that it is known to be in the neighbourhood of $3,000.


One of the documents obtained through access to information legislation that revealed expenses for Oda's travel last June show the bill for the car rental was $2,850.


Oda's office said Thursday that she has repaid for the car service and "all incremental costs" that should never have been charged to taxpayers but did not specify what those costs include.


Oda offered an apology Tuesday for billing taxpayers for staying at London's swanky Savoy hotel instead of the five-star hotel she was originally supposed to stay at, where the conference she was attending was being held. Staying at the Savoy cost about $665 per night, more than double the cost of staying at the Grange St. Paul's hotel.


Oda also billed taxpayers for hiring a luxury car and driver, at a cost of about $1,000 per day, to transport her the two kilometres from the Savoy to the conference.


When the story broke on Monday Oda said she had nothing to be embarrassed about and that all Treasury Board guidelines were followed when she filed the expenses for last June's three-day stay in London. On Tuesday, however, she said the costs were unacceptable and never should have been charged to taxpayers.


She repaid taxpayers for the difference in cost between the two hotels, the cancellation fee that was incurred, and an orange juice that cost $16. In total, she repaid $1,353.81.


But opposition MPs called on Oda to also repay the amount for the car, since it would not have been necessary if she stayed at the original hotel where the conference was taking place. They argued the car was a cost associated with switching hotels, but Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan indicated Wednesday that no further payments would be coming from Oda.


"The minister has repaid the inappropriate costs. I think that is what the public would expect, that is what the opposition would expect, and I do not think she would be asked to repay costs that were appropriate," he said during question period.


Opposition MPs kept up their questioning on Thursday and interim Liberal leader Bob Rae asked Oda when she decided to also pay taxpayers back for the car service.


Van Loan took the question instead but didn't answer it. He said the government expects ministers to conduct government business at reasonable costs and that's why Oda has repaid the inappropriate expenses. He then brought up the sponsorship scandal and said Liberals should be paying taxpayers back for money still owed to them.


Loading Slideshow...
  • Which Cabinet Ministers Oppose Abortion?

    The <a href="http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Find_Your_MP" target="_hplink">Campaign Life Coalition provides a listing of MPs who support and oppose abortion rights</a>. The list is based on voting records, previous comments and questionnaire responses. Here is a list of Conservative cabinet ministers who, according to the Coalition, oppose abortion. (CP)

  • Rob Nicholson

    Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. (CP)

  • Vic Toews

    Minister of Public Safety. (CP)

  • Peter Van Loan

    Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. (CP)

  • Jason Kenney

    Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. (CP)

  • Gerry Ritz

    Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. (Handout)

  • Ed Fast

    Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. (CP)

  • Lynne Yelich

    Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. (Handout)

  • Gary Goodyear

    Minister of State for Science and Technology and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. (Handout)


Loading Slideshow...
  • Where The Parties Stand On Abortion

    Here's a look at the official position of Canada's federal parties, and how the controversial debate has reared its head in recent years. <em>With files from CBC</em>

  • Conservative Party

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said that he has no interest in addressing the issue head-on.<br><br>"As long as I am prime minister we are not opening the abortion debate," Mr. Harper said in April 2011. "The government will not bring forward any such legislation, and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister." (CP)

  • NDP

    NDP leader Tom Mulcair has stated that his caucus is unanimous in its opposition to the private member's motion calling on Parliament to look at whether a fetus is a human being, but he plans to force his MPs to vote along party lines.<br><br>"We're resolutely in favour of women's right to choose," Mulcair declared. (CP)

  • Liberal Party

    Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae has stressed that the abortion issue is matter of individual conscience. Rae expressed his personal opposition to reopening the debate, but said Liberal MPs will be allowed to vote "their conscience" rather than force them to toe the party line.<br><br>"Our position on reproductive choice, my position on reproductive choice is very, very clear. It has been for decades. The position is it's a person's right to choose." (CP)

  • Planned Parenthood Funding Controversy

    Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost tells Saskatchewan's ProLife Association in April 2011 that the federal government has decided to cut funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, a decision he says was influenced by anti-abortion supporters.<br><br>"I cannot tell you specifically how we used it, but those petitions were very, very useful and they were part of what we used to defund Planned Parenthood because it has been an absolute disgrace that that organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said.<br><br>Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP from Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, also calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.<br><br>Vellacott says the controversy over the funding "exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF's agenda."<br><br>"It exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide."<br><br>International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda approves funding. (CP)

  • 'Coerced' Abortion Law

    Conservative Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge proposes "Roxanne's Law" in 2010, a bill that would penalize anyone who "coerced" a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will.<br><br>"It's not just as simple as feeling pressured to get an abortion; there is a lot of discussion of sex-selection abortion these days, as well," Bruinooge told the Winnipeg Free Press. "It's part of the overall topic of intimidation that goes towards a pregnant woman."<br><br>Bruinooge insisted the bill wasn't meant to force Parliament to wade into the debate banned by Harper, stating that nothing in his bill made it illegal to abort a fetus.<br><br>But the Liberals and New Democrats saw it as a backdoor entry into the touchy topic.<br><br>"How is an abortion bill not an abortion bill?" said then-Liberal MP Anita Neville. "This certainly introduces discussion into the House of Commons and it is a rather sneaky way of doing it."<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton echoed her concerns. "You have got to wonder what is really going on here."<br><br>The bill was defeated in December of 2010, with 178 votes for and 97 against it. Harper and many Conservatives voted against it and 10 Liberals supported it. The NDP was unanimously against it. (Handout)

  • Maternal Health

    International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda discloses for the first time in April 2011 that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.<br><br>Keith Martin, then-Liberal MP who had defected from the Tories years earlier, expressed outrage. "People here are perplexed and wondering why Canada is rolling back the clock and depriving women in developing countries from having the same rights to basic health care and access to abortion as women in Canada," he said.<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton accused the Tories of putting Canada on side with former U.S. president George Bush, who reduced support for abortion-related aid.<br><br>"It's picking up the banner that George Bush used to carry, and I think that that's not something that would be supported by the majority of Canadians, that's for sure," Layton said.<br><br>On June 25, Canada pledged $1.1 billion to a global initiative on maternal and child health for developing countries - a disproportionately high amount compared to other G8 countries. Canada did not allow for its share to be used in the funding of abortions. (CP)

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS

International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is now reimbursing taxpayers for the car and driver she hired during a trip abroad after saying earlier in the week that she had paid back all of...
International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is now reimbursing taxpayers for the car and driver she hired during a trip abroad after saying earlier in the week that she had paid back all of...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 209
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:18 PM on 05/14/2012
Bev Oda's Big Night On London, or what's-hiz-name, the nobody Harper backbencher planted to slyly launch a debate on abortion: it's All The Same Harper Garbage!
Harprer, like his little friend George W. Bush, Jumps for Jesus, so in fact he don't need no freakin' democratic debate on women's' reproductive rights. He already has The Word direct from God. This parliament is just a sham and a cover for Harpo's nefarious religionist aspirations to total control.
PEOPLE: Fight Back!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greysells2
grey cells matter
07:54 AM on 05/01/2012
Story and headline do not match. Someone programmed in the wrong link.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eileen Warren
01:46 PM on 04/28/2012
Anyone remember francis Fox?He was against abortion publicly and privately took his mistress in to have one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicanada
Blogger, radio co-host, writer, editor, voice-over
01:40 PM on 04/27/2012
Life rrreeeeaaalllllyyyyy begins when you enter politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
01:32 PM on 04/27/2012
Uh - Huffpost? Why when I click on a story about MPs opposing a vote on abortion, I get a story about Bev Oda's overspending?

I agree her limo rides at my expense was important, but so is the attack on reproductive freedoms....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greysells2
grey cells matter
04:20 PM on 04/27/2012
The're both termination stories. It's in the keywords.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lou on Vancouver Island
Allin, Lou: Mystery Author
11:43 AM on 04/27/2012
Stay tuned to Vatican North, brought to you by Alberta extremists: Tomorrow's Debate--How ManyAngels Can Fit onto the Top of a Pinhead?
01:14 PM on 04/27/2012
Ironically, the abortion rate among evangelical religious is very high. The exact numbers are hard to nail down because so many get sent to the "big bad cities" for a visit with a relative for a few months.

Birth control is not tolerated because it would be "pre-meditated sin" for single women.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicanada
Blogger, radio co-host, writer, editor, voice-over
01:40 PM on 04/27/2012
You actually believe in pin heads ??
photo
smduib
truth is not relative
11:22 AM on 04/27/2012
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Why do the pro choicers shy away from science on this crucial issue?

No human embryologist claims life is potential, this is something we have created in the culture to rationalize taking innocent life.

As you can see from the message board, any discussion on the issue raises loud and angry protests from pro choicers, and of course politicians shy away from that type of publicity. The laws in Canada will never change until the tide of public opinion changes.
11:25 AM on 04/27/2012
Because it isn't a decision OTHER PEOPLE get to make for a total stranger.

You're welcome.

P.S. Good to see you have at least learned to type "pro-choicers" instead of "pro-abortioners". Very few people think abortion is a good thing, but quite a lot think it is - at times - a necessary thing. But once again, it isn't YOUR choice to make - for OTHER PEOPLE.
photo
smduib
truth is not relative
12:51 PM on 04/27/2012
Truth be told, all of your responses repeat the same have the same old rhetoric at nauseam, "my body, my choice." Do you know that the slogan was created by NARAL, Pro-Choice America? Dr Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL, and an abortionist responsible for over 75,000 abortions, who later turned pro life, says, "I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy catchy slogans to capture public opinion." and it worked. 40 years later, they are still being repeated by pro choice proponents.

Have you asked yourself the very serious question of what that choice is? It's whether or not to take a life. I am also confident that your argument wouldn't extend to everything. If I want to drive 150kms/hr down the hwy drinking because it's my body and my choice, I hardly think the police would agree with me because I'm putting others in harm's way. Abortion does the utmost harm to another human being, which is why I am passionate. Just as I would be passionate about saving a 2 yr old who was about to be hit by a car. This is a human rights issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marg Wood
Peace
02:42 PM on 04/27/2012
There are many scientist who would disagree with Professor Micheline Mathews-Roth! I wonder if she also believes in creationism? Most Scientists don't!
11:51 AM on 04/27/2012
You see the "loud and angry" protests from pro-choicers, but turn a blind eye to the murders and bombings perpetrated by the "pro-lifers"?

Even the churches were sending collections of cash to enable murderers to stay abroad to avoid arrest in the U.S.

A bit of hypocrisy you you might like to rationalize.

Nice that you have found that one opinion among thousands is available for use as incontrovertible evidence to "prove" a fully reasoned argument.
photo
smduib
truth is not relative
12:37 PM on 04/27/2012
Seriously, that's your reply? No true pro lifer supports the murder or bombings, which a few disturbed people have committed.

Did you have a rebuttal to the "one opinion" or do you prefer to stick to attacks?, and I could find hundreds more, but don't want to tie up the message board with them all. Please find me a Human Embryologist who disagrees.
02:52 PM on 04/27/2012
Most pro-life people condemn bombings of clinics and the murder of abortionists. Killing an abortionist is murder. Killing an unborn child is murder. It can't get any simpler than that.
09:48 AM on 04/27/2012
For those who state that it is only the woman's right to choose, I have a question.

Do you also support the notion that then, they should forgo the right to engage in paternity suits, child support claims, etc.against the father?

If it is only the woman's right, then similarly the father would have *no* right or say. If he has responsibility, but no authority, then how can he be accountable?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
10:22 AM on 04/27/2012
Paternity claims for what? That doesn't occur until after a child is born.

Alberta...also home of the crybaby male...you read too much of Charles Adler's addled words.
10:48 AM on 04/27/2012
Honest question dude. Don't resort to the left's namecalling tactics. Think.

If it is solely a woman's right to choose, AND SHE CHOOSES TO CARRY THE BABY TO DELIVERY (or do you think there is only one option in the event of pregnancy?), doesn't that become her responsibility if the father is left out of the decision?

Where the hell did Charles Adler come into the equation? I happen to think for myself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marg Wood
Peace
02:55 PM on 04/27/2012
Men are also not forced to be pregnant for 9 months either!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:51 AM on 04/27/2012
Child support is a right of the child, not a right of either parent. Both parents are responsible for the care and welfare of their children.

I think there is an argument to be made that men should be allowed to, at least up to some point during the pregnancy, waive their paternity rights to the child. This would probably need to be handled quite delicately, but I don't think it would be impossible in principle to have something like this available for men. Of course, the likely result of this is more abortions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BCPATRIOT
British Columbia
09:06 AM on 04/27/2012
He is nothing but a clown.

I am more interested in the tax payers $$$ being wasted by Mr. Harper's Ministers.

Mr. Harper its time you got rid of all those losers that are riding on your shirt tails, all six of them. Do not be afraid of firing them because they are dragging you down and making you look bad in the public eye.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
01:36 PM on 04/27/2012
Fire them? It's more likely they will be rewarded by this PM. Do not make the mistake of thinking that a single one of these MPs is doing anything not sanctioned by the PMO.

This is all part of Harper's own values, judgments and agenda. To think otherwise is hopelessly naive and wilfully unobservant.
paintitblacker
shit happens life goes on
09:02 AM on 04/27/2012
women all across canada have the right to determine for them selves .reproductive rights and freedoms belong to women not men

whats this little miniature baby they hold up , nothing more than a key chain, but symbolic in that its an attempt to inflame those who are sitting on the fence, harper had to say he would vote against re-opening the debate, to do otherwise would be foolhardy , to go against the vote re-deems his stature but not for long
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
09:26 AM on 04/27/2012
I think this whole charade was allowed... to make him look good..........and to distract from other issues.......it's not working though...and actually makes them look siller..........this didn't help....
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/26/stephen-harper-shouted-down-for-saying-ndp-didnt-support-fight-against-hitler/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eileen Warren
01:40 PM on 04/28/2012
And living in Quebec when Morgantaler was found not guilty and the verdict being overturned in 3 separate trials (one jury was all male) it took civil liberties to make the law stand.Twas a very effective petition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
10:21 AM on 04/27/2012
Very good point..."key chain". That's what conservatives think of foetuses...some trinket to play with.
08:45 AM on 04/27/2012
Good news for a change.
Mr. Woodworth, I don't speak for all Canadians but I really think that most of us are more concerned about employment, health services etc. than frivolously delving into the wording of a 400 year old definition in order to push your personal opinions on to the rest of Canada.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hjorlejf
08:26 AM on 04/27/2012
Not even Harper is stupid enough to commit political suicide by touching that one.
goleafsgo
A Lie stands on one leg, Truth on two.
09:02 AM on 04/27/2012
You betcha!   "political suicide" indeed!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marg Wood
Peace
03:20 PM on 04/27/2012
I think he allowed it so he could reject it to make himself look good!
08:20 AM on 04/27/2012
I fully support a woman's right to opt for an abortion, but I think some people are looking at this as only one issue. First there is the debate that maybe life does start earlier than when a baby emerges completely from the mother's womb, and those that don't even want to debate this in order to protect a woman's choice are just as bad as those on the other side of the fence who are trying to "shove those plastic baby fetuses down our throats".

The other part of the debate is the woman's right to choose to get an abortion. It is her body and she should have the right to determine whether to abort a fetus or not. I just believe that there actually needs to be a debate on a 400 year old definition that holds no scientific proof and bring Canada into the 21st century.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imma Okay
09:04 AM on 04/27/2012
It's impossible to determine when life begins exactly. All you can do is either say you're a person after you're actually born, or make up some arbitrary period. The vast majority of fetuses are aborted during the first trimester. There's very, very few abortions during the first and third. So there's really no need for a debate.
03:16 PM on 04/27/2012
Immediately upon conception, a new person, with it's own set of unique DNA is formed. 22 days after conception, the heart starts beating. 40 days after conception, brain waves are detectable. All this occurs in the first trimester.

Medical books deem the embryo a human being:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

So the determination of life is not an arbitrary period. It has been deemed so by the medical community.
11:03 AM on 04/27/2012
To show just HOW scary the frightwingers are, in America, there's a movement within the Teathuglicant Party to begin counting at the time of the woman's last ovulation before fertilization. No, you did not read that incorrectly. They actually want laws to state that life begins BEFORE pregnancy.

The insanity surrounding this issue would cease immediately if men could get pregnant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
01:39 PM on 04/27/2012
''If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.''

-Florynce Kennedy
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eileen Warren
01:43 PM on 04/28/2012
And ever wonder where they are coming from as no where in any Bible I ever read does it say Thou shalt not have an abortion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlisonCarnie
I am unique ... just like everyone else
08:15 AM on 04/27/2012
This is getting really really tiring ... one more time

NOT YOUR UTERUS

NOT YOUR CHOICE
goleafsgo
A Lie stands on one leg, Truth on two.
09:03 AM on 04/27/2012
Sigh!   So true, Alison.
09:43 AM on 04/27/2012
"One more time" and I hope that's the last time.
11:04 AM on 04/27/2012
It sure won't be if some "CONservative" MPs get their way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rayma Allaby
07:46 AM on 04/27/2012
right wing cons stay the hell out of issues that don't concern you...ALL matters of health are between the person and his/her dr. AND that is how it should be....