Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Not a Fan

Unless she can explain that discrepancy, which she has failed to do so far, the only logical conclusion is that she lied to MPs at her first appearance.

Once again, the Harper government appears most vulnerable to problems of its own making. As with last summer’s census gambit, Ms. Oda’s apparent indiscretion represents a self-inflicted political wound.

-National Post


At best, Oda has shaken confidence in the way the Harper government doles out taxpayers’ cash. At worst, she tried to mislead Parliament and the public. Either way, she should go.
-Star


Bev Oda, the International Cooperation Minister, committed a serious transgression when she willfully misled a House committee in December and, prior to that, appeared to oversee the falsifying of a document from a government agency. She should apologize unequivocally to the Foreign Affairs committee and explain the decision-making process involved.
-Globe


Oda's removal is necessary, but it alone will not create the kind of coherent international aid-funding policies that Canadians demand, and that groups like KAIROS which are trying to improve lives around the world, deserve.
-Ottawa Citizen


While it is pro forma for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and field boss, House leader John Baird, to back cabinet ministers from time to time for forgetting a certain page in the playbook, it is quite another when respected rules of the game are so blatantly ignored.

There is no denying Bev Oda lied to the Canadian people.

There is no denying she misled Parliament.

-Toronto Sun


In describing how it came about, Oda appears to have misled MPs about what happened, first saying she did not know who altered the CIDA recommendation and later admitting she ordered the altering of the document. That makes her contemptuous of Parliament, and for that, she must resign or be removed.
-Calgary Herald


WHICH IS to say: it is the government’s defense of her, more even than the minister’s misconduct, that is now the issue. Ministers in any government will screw up from time to time. Some will even lie. That is fallible humanity. But when they are caught, when the jig is up, when there are no longer any lies to be told, it is to be expected — it has always been expected — that consequences should follow. At the least, one could expect the government to acknowledge that what she did was wrong — or at the very least, to acknowledge that she did it.
-Andrew Coyne


I think Coyne sums it up best. There's no grey area here - Oda doctored the document and lied about it. That should get you kicked out of cabinet under any circumstances and it says a lot about Harper that he's sticking by her.

28 Comments:

  • I think Coyne sums it up best. There's no grey area here - Oda doctored the document


    Sorry, but it was not a 'document' (it's a memo) and not 'doctored' either. Worse still, how did she manage to allegedly do this when she was out of the country at the time the alteration was made?


    and lied about it.


    And you have some sort of proof of that, do you? That she actually deliberately lied, rather than forgot about something that happened back in 2009? Please post your evidence here.


    That should get you kicked out of cabinet under any circumstances and it says a lot about Harper that he's sticking by her.


    It does indeed say a lot about our Prime Minister...just nothing you'd like to hear...

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 11:58 PM  

  • So she forgot? Pray tell, when has anyone in the government claimed that she forgot, and that is why she told MP's the decision was based on CIDA?

    By Blogger Gayle, at 1:05 AM  

  • Isn't this government supposed to stand for the concept of taking personal responsibility? Yet again conservatives prove that they believe personal responsibility does not apply to them.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 1:06 AM  

  • Fred does his Kindergarten Cop routine:

    "It's ^NOT a tumor." Sorry, but memos ARE documents.

    And, ok, you're right, the facts aren't in yet on WHO added the word or when or on whose authority... but even if she was out of the country on the date the mocument was date-stamped, how do you know that was when the not-ty word was inserted?

    As for the lie: that's a bump in the rug that's not going away: at least some if not all of these statements by Ms. Oda & her Parliamentary Secretary highlighted in the timeline at the end of this article & in the HOC the past few days are false:

    on whether CIDA said it didn't meet their criteria; or whether she did; on whether SHE ordered that their decision be reversed (or Harper or the PMO did); on whether SHE added the 'Not' or at least ordered / directed that it be added, or whether she had no idea who did it or how it got there.

    www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/doctored-documents-misleading-claims-a-test-of-democracy-says-ignatieff-116332344.html

    Yaba-y'Oda-Done!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:47 AM  

  • I have lost track on the number of times the combined forces of the MSM with opposition parties get side tracked from the big issues.

    Since losing power in 2006 the Liberals have chosen to ask upwards of twenty Conservatives to resign.

    In all this time the fortunes have not improved from Dion to Ignatieff.

    Oda is just another female Conservative that is 'fair game' for personal attacks.

    The proof will come later.

    The error in judgment, the apology given will not suffice for the wolf pack that has become the MSM-opposition.

    Given the past results I can only applaud the willingness to repeat the same strategy in trying to shift public opinion.

    The few that are actually paying attention will be pleased by the priorities on display.

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 2:02 AM  

  • Thanks CS, for coming here and bringing us back to the REAL issues - like how icky Ignatieff is, and how unbecoming it is for an opposition to actually criticize a Minister of the Crown for lying to Canadian citizens and to MP's in Parliament.

    Thank you CS for bring clarity to this situation.

    ha ha ha ha ha

    By Blogger Gayle, at 10:05 AM  

  • If any of what Fred says is true, I'd like to hear it from Oda.

    And I don't see this as another typical Liberal/MSM sidetrack. Voters do care about ethical breaches. Why do you think voters kicked out the Liberals in the first place? Because they thought the Conservatives would do a better job of running the country? Come on.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:11 AM  

  • CS - I tend to agree this likely won't be a big voter-changer, but the Liberals aren't wrong to force the issue. It's important.

    And how is this a personal attack? It's as fact-based as attacks get.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:47 AM  

  • every filthy misogynist racist in the country is attacking Oda. watched Layton, Bob Rae and Paul Dewar on CTV attacking her. these 3 looked like a KKK meeting.

    By Blogger mauser98, at 12:14 PM  

  • To Fred from BC (which I assume stands for Bellicose Curmudgeon), Canadian ˆ(non)Sense™ and others in their hear no evil, see no evil, but speak a LOT of evil posture, I find it rather humourous that you well represent the blathering, er, ah, I mean "chattering classes" of the fringe with your usual absolutist stance of good and bad, black and white, right and wrong when applied to anyone outside of your echo chamber but when it's one of your own, you suddenly discover relativistic ethics. Her ends justified the means. Poor Bev needed to order the the document changed because there was no place for her to sign and say she disagreed with CIDA's recommendation of approval for KAIROS. I guess the poor wretch never considered simply NOT signing the document in the first place.

    "Sorry, but it was not a 'document' (it's a memo) and not 'doctored' either. Worse still, how did she manage to allegedly do this when she was out of the country at the time the alteration was made?"

    She has stated (if she can be believed) that she ordered the change, not that she did it herself.

    For your edification, I've taken the liberty of posting some definitions below in order that you learn to broaden your vocabulary.

    Edification noun formal
    The instruction or improvement of a person morally or intellectually.

    Document noun
    A piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record

    Memo noun
    A written message, especially in business.
    ORIGIN early 18th century: abbreviation of memorandum

    Memorandum noun
    A note or record made for future use.
    • a written message, especially in business or diplomacy.
    • in law a document recording the terms of a contract or other legal details.

    Doctor verb [transitive]
    Change the content or appearance of a document in order to deceive.

    Ah yes. The evil opposition in league with the MSM (yes the evil, corporately concentrated MSM that doesn't simply print Dear Leaders™ press releases verbatim OFTEN enough) dare to criticize our Dear Leader™ and his minions. How undemocratic is that? My gosh. How can anyone disagree with Dear Leader™ the source of all truth?

    "Oda is just another female Conservative that is 'fair game' for personal attacks."

    Right. Because she's female, the opposition is attacking. Naaaw. It has nothing to do with lying to the House of Commons. Nothing to do with ordering a signed document to be altered without bothering to initial the change and getting the previous signatories to initial the change—as anyone else is REQUIRED to do with any other contract/document/memo/memorandum or they face charges of fraud. No. It's just because she's a "female Conservative". And what, pray tell, happened with Helena? She was a "female Conservative" attacked from within, considered guilty by Dear Leader™ before the fact, RCMP called in to investigate and subsequently cleared yet still cast aside by Dear Leader™ without ever informing Canadians - or even poor Helena herself apparently - of the egregious accusations against her?

    Most of us really know what happened. CIDA recommended it. Poor Bev (aka Pinkeye) signed it. Kenney (aka Minimus) and Dear Leader™ (aka Napoleon) disapproved of her acting without having her decision vetted by Jason Kenny, Dimitri Soudas (aka Squealer) or Dear Leader™ himself. Poor Bev was then ordered to figure out a solution to claim that CIDA actually did NOT recommend funding for this obviously (ˆNOT) anti-semetic group. What remains to be seen is whether poor Bev will fall on her sword and take one for the team or try to save what remains of her hide and tell us that she was "simply following orders" from Dear Leader™.

    By Blogger Curtis, at 12:47 PM  

  • I'd like to see anyone who has ever used an autopen, or who has had a staffer sign a document on their behalf, swear that they signed the document.

    Is that your signature? Yes. Did you sign this document? No.

    Oda did no different, despite the hew and cry opposite. She had a "NOT" inserted. She doesn't know who actually did it. She did not do it herself.

    That she may not be willing to swear that she did something that was done on her behalf - that she is actually honest and forthright - should not be a discredit to her.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:56 PM  

  • CG,

    The opposition and MSM are using the term liar, forgery making it personal attack.

    I listen to how the opposition repeat the 2009 deficit figure vs the 2010 number.

    I listened to the opposition cite the G8-G20 costs while Kevin Page report clears the CPC.

    I listened to the opposition cite partisan spending on EAP and the AG clears that up.

    So would it make sense to refer to those MP as liars?

    I think the communication on the defunding was handled poorly. I think their is room for confusion. I don't see the line of attack as balanced or factual.

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 3:14 PM  

  • I thought that was a rather disgraceful exhibition on Power Play by Travers and Robert Fife on Wednesday, to celebrate the unflattering and tasteless picture, that Canadian Press captured and circulated to all the news media of Bev Oda and the cigarette, which they guaranteed would be carried and shown all over by their professional ( using term very loosely) brethren – doesn’t say much for our media does it as it sinks to another low?
    For Travers and Fife to make light of this disgusting act, and their ensuing guffaws, should raise the ire of women across Canada, for this juvenile treatment and intrusion of a private moment. To think that 24 hours earlier, both Travis and Fife were lecturing politicians about tasteless and vulgar personal attacks, and that they had no place in a civilized society( do we recall the picture of Chretien that was condemned by these same two individuals), yet in this case they applauded, if not cherished, this disgraceful act. They can not deny that they were amused and relished this offensive photo and its’ resulting publicity, which they helped contribute to. Are we to assume that journalist have a different standard and code of ethics which may be even worse than that of politicians – or are these two an exception to the rule? I will believe, they are the exception, when I hear some of their brethren condemn them for their disgraceful actions, or that they sincerely apologize to all Canadians and women in particular, or preferably both.
    Any journalist worth his salt would have condemned and despised this act of yellow journalism.
    I am reminded of the old saying “I hear the laughter of the vacant minds”
    Does CTV and Power Play owe their viewers an apology – you decide?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:10 PM  

  • They use the term "liar" because she lied.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 9:56 PM  

  • mauser98: Yes, clearly it was exactly like a KKK meeting. Because surely if there is only one filthy anti-Asian bigot in Canada, it is Jack Layton.

    Incidentally if you're going to spend your online hours throwing about accusations of racism as wildly as that, you might first choose a user ID which is not the name of a WWII-era rifle used by the SS.

    By Blogger saphorr, at 10:34 PM  

  • Peter B says: (February 16, 2011 at 7:04 pm )
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Here is email sent to Brian Lilley:

    Brian

    Here are two versions of what was asked of Oda – yours and Campbell Clark. With this conflicting evidence opposition is prepared to crucify Oda rather than search for the truth.

    http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/conservatives/odas-incomptence-masks-the-right-decision-on-kairos/

    You said:

    “Oda has said she didn’t know how the word “not” with a little arrow was added to the document denying Kairos funding but Monday she acknowledged it was on her order”.
    I don’t think Oda ever said “she didn’t know how the word “not ” got on the document but she could not and didn’t at the time provide a name of the staffer, for whatever reason, who put the word “not” in answer to the question – although she always maintained it was with her knowledge and consent.

    Here is how Campbell Clark of Globe and Mail wrote the incident
    “When new documents emerged in December, MPs asked her who inserted the “not” and Ms. Oda said she didn’t know. But the minister admitted in the House of Commons on Monday she had given instructions that the “not” be inserted, saying it was intended to reflect her decision against the funding. ”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/doctored-memo-means-minister-cant-be-trusted-liberals-charge/article1907974/

    So the confusion is around the words “who” and “how” being used interchangeably- but I think it is agreed the question was “who”

    At the very same meeting at which Oda testified , President of CIDA Margaret Biggs, who signed the Kairos document, also testified before the parliamentary committee in December, Oda did nothing wrong and used her ministerial discretion and judgment to deny approval of the funding.
    “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.”

    There is a lot of misrepresentation of the facts here, and it is not by Oda, and a lawyer would have a field day with these opposition accusations which they purport to be the fact and the truth.

    From: http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2011/02/16/on-incompetence/#comments
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I found the above comment very interesting. I know that there is no way to change the way some think here, yet it is possible that the above might explain what she meant in her answer. To me, it is a logical explanation of events. One group sees it as a lie, and the other sees it as the way things happened. This will not change minds, for the opposition will never say they were wrong, and the Cons will stand behind her. [It is compairable to some who believe that Trudeau was the worst PM ever, while others believe that Harper is the worst PM ever.] A perfect example is what the Liberals said about changing/getting rid of the GST (and Free Trade.) Was it a lie? Depends if you are a Liberal.

    Since the Liberals want an election, [I would love to see every Liberal vote against the budget,] let us voters decide who should be voted in to represent them in Parliament.

    I do have one important question about the upcoming election; do the Liberal MP’s who still owe Elections Canada thousands of dollars get to run in the coming election? Just asking.

    I also think this is stressed right now so the voters will not remember that the Bloc said they would support the Liberal and NDP if there is another minority government.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:07 AM  

  • Memo to Fred: Memos are, in fact, "documents".

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:45 PM  

  • wasn't 'doctored' either ... out of the country at the time the alteration was made?

    So, it wasn't "doctored", just "altered".... ! Vive la difference.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:47 PM  

  • Memo to Fred: Memos are, in fact, "documents".


    Yes, yes...they're also 'papers'. Forgive me for trying to be brief, and assuming that the readers here are smart enough to figure out on their own that when I say "documents" I mean LEGAL "documents" (as opposed to in-house memos that are not for public consumption).

    If that's your best 'spin', you're going to fare no better than the hapless Gayle ever does...

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 8:47 PM  

  • wasn't 'doctored' either ... out of the country at the time the alteration was made?

    So, it wasn't "doctored", just "altered".... ! Vive la difference.


    Wow..take two different statements, put them together out of context, and there's your argument, eh? Yup...you're a Liberal...

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 8:49 PM  

  • They use the term "liar" because she lied.


    PROVE IT, Gayle. Post it here. Post the exact 'lie' Bev Oda supposedly told.

    (or run away in your usual fashion)

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 8:52 PM  

  • Anonymous said...

    Fred does his Kindergarten Cop routine:


    'Anonymous' does his "I'm too big a coward to identify myself in case I get my ass kicked" routine.


    As for the lie: that's a bump in the rug that's not going away: at least some if not all of these statements by Ms. Oda & her Parliamentary Secretary highlighted in the timeline at the end of this article & in the HOC the past few days are false:

    on whether CIDA said it didn't meet their criteria; or whether she did; on whether SHE ordered that their decision be reversed (or Harper or the PMO did); on whether SHE added the 'Not' or at least ordered / directed that it be added, or whether she had no idea who did it or how it got there.



    STILL WAITING. Where's the 'lie'?

    (I don't have to post a definition of that word for you, do I?)

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 8:58 PM  

  • I only quoted one statement actually Fred - there's no putting two "different" ones together.

    You just don't know what "document" or "doctored" mean.

    I don't even think Oda's the guilty party here, I imagine she's taking the blame for someone else.

    Still, I can admit that she acted wrongly and I'm pretty sure that hand-altering signed legal documents before adding a signature isn't really the professionalism we expect from ANY government....

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 1:00 PM  

  • Sigh. Fred, Fred, Fred.

    Always so aggressive with the false allegations. I am not sure why you think attacking me helps your cause, but whatever...

    Anyhoo

    It is dishonest to allow people to think that the decision was made based on what the bureaucrats had to say when the decision was actually made based on what the government had to say.

    Using language that leads people to believe something to be true when it is not true is dishonest. If you cannot understand that then I cannot help you.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 1:14 AM  

  • Jacques Beau Vert said...

    I only quoted one statement actually Fred - there's no putting two "different" ones together.


    You quoted pieces of two different sentences.


    You just don't know what "document" or "doctored" mean.

    In fact, I do. And so does the President of CIDA herself (Margaret Briggs, I think her name is?), who has also stated that there was nothing out of the ordinary about adding the 'not' to the recommendation, because apparently there was no way for the Minister to express disagreement. This has now been fixed with the introduction of a NEW FORM that has 'Yes' and 'No' checkboxes for the Minister's use.


    I don't even think Oda's the guilty party here, I imagine she's taking the blame for someone else.

    I'd agree, if I thought there was any actual 'blame' here. KAIROS is not *entitled* to government funding any more than any other NGO is...and if they are going to thumb their noses at the current government and support causes that the government considers to be not in the best interests of Canada, they should not expect the government to give them our tax dollars.

    (and I'm not even getting into the anti Alberta oil sands and pro Kyoto Agreement crap. We've got the good old NDP for that...:)


    Still, I can admit that she acted wrongly and I'm pretty sure that hand-altering signed legal documents before adding a signature isn't really the professionalism we expect from ANY government....


    As stated above, this has now been fixed. There were NO 'legal documents' involved, and no alteration was made before the signature was added (the signature was auto-penned *at the same time* by an unknown staffer, at the Minister's direction, while she was out of the country). Of course none of this would even be an issue if the Liberals weren't so desperate to discredit the Conservative government.

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 2:59 AM  

  • Gayle said...

    Sigh. Fred, Fred, Fred.

    Always so aggressive with the false allegations. I am not sure why you think attacking me helps your cause, but whatever...



    (nahhh...that part I do just for fun...)


    Anyhoo

    It is dishonest to allow people to think that the decision was made based on what the bureaucrats had to say when the decision was actually made based on what the government had to say.



    That's a far cry cry from "they use the term "liar" because she lied", isn't it? In other words, there WAS NO LIE. Period. It would have been better if I didn't have to drag it out of you, but I appreciate you finally telling the truth, Gayle. Really.


    Using language that leads people to believe something to be true when it is not true is dishonest. If you cannot understand that then I cannot help you.


    I understand that just as clearly as I understand how you tried (and failed) to prove that Bev Oda "lied'. I can see it just as clearly as I now see your laughably inept attempt to change your story from "lied" to merely "dishonest". Don't worry, Gayle...my eyesight is just fine...;)

    By Blogger Fred from BC, at 3:15 AM  

  • "that part I do just for fun"

    Wow. Wouldn't want to be you. Obviously you are easily amused.

    Being dishonest is being a liar. Sure, it is kind of cute and a whole lot of desperate that you actually try to distinguish between the two, but at the end of the day it boils down to the same thing, and that is that Oda deliberately mislead Parliament.

    But good for you for not denying that at least.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 9:48 AM  

  • Gayle repeating a lie does not make it the truth.

    Thanks for coming out.

    I accept you may have graduated from the Jean Chretien school of logic a proof is a good proof therefore it is proven.

    The usual suspects like yourself are all over this.

    By Blogger CanadianSense, at 11:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home