Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document

GWiz · February 17, 2011

Which Liberal MP stole? We KNOW a CPC MP LIED to the House?

I think he meant PM MORONey and Gomery but got his parties and scandals mixed up, it happens...

Edited February 17, 2011 by GWiz

Saipan · February 17, 2011

BUT in the house of public opinion they will see and hear a liar.

Same goes for Chretien, Martin, Robinson, Clinton......... and they didn't hang themself

Saipan · February 17, 2011

Which Liberal MP stole?

Chretein, Martin.....and of course Robinson but then that's NDP

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

Chretein, Martin.....and of course Robinson but then that's NDP

What exactly did Chretien or Martin steal?

Battletoads · February 17, 2011

Disturbing. I don't understand why the cons don't have the stone to stand up for what they believe in. If they wanted this funding cut why didn't they come right out and say it?

Bitsy · February 17, 2011

August is right, most people don't care and are probably happy they aren't getting the 7 milllion. The only people who care about denying funding to a religious group are those baying at the moon with the pack, out for political blood....

Again, if she mislead or lied to Parliament she should step down, as for the rest of it, garbage.

Minister Oda does have the power which she used, to deny funding recommendation from her department. Maybe the opposition and their hangers on think they have a case because instead of stamping it declined, she wrote not, they are baying at the wrong moon. The Minister still runs the department, not the bureaucrats and the opposition critics. Kudos for denying that group of **** funding.

I think we all agree that she was well within her rights to deny the funding so the question that begs to be answered is why she allowed her parliamentary secretary, Jim Abbot, to tell the House of Commons that the CIDA denied the funding? Why did she respond with "The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion" to MP Glen Pearson when questioned about the defunding? She was first willing to let CIDA be responsible for the decision until the information from the Access to Information Act became public. She has misrepresented the CIDA’s role and her role in this matter from the very beginning.

ccen · February 17, 2011

I think we all agree that she was well within her rights to deny the funding so the question that begs to be answered is why she allowed her parliamentary secretary, Jim Abbot, to tell the House of Commons that the CIDA denied the funding? Why did she respond with "The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion" to MP Glen Pearson when questioned about the defunding? She was first willing to let CIDA be responsible for the decision until the information from the Access to Information Act became public. She has misrepresented the CIDA’s role and her role in this matter from the very beginning.

Check out http://www.centristparty.piczo.com/?cr=5 to see what a successor to the old Progressive Conservative party can bring to our politics. We need a party that is fiscally responsible, socially progressive, for middle grounds and compromise and this new party has to be moderate conservative and between the new parties.If we had a party like this Canada would finally have three choices that are moderate and then we would not have to be stuck with just Liberals and Conservatives but finally have a new party to increase voter turnout and bring civility to our politics.

ccen · February 17, 2011

What we want to do is build a strong compassionate conservative yes and I said compassionate conservative and not neoconservative like the current Conservatives and that means protecting health and education and making them essential services which can never be touched, making sure law and order are issues which get dealt with using all party support and in a way that is not overly politicized. We need a party that is also about middle grounds and compromise. This party is about red tory/blue liberalism as our party's main ideology. We want to be a liberal conservative policy like the old PC party.

We think a party in the tradition of Sir John A. MacDonald is wanted and would get a lot of support across the country but of course a lot of discussions with people is needed first but our party has the ideas to build a strong party between the two major parties and we feel a lot of people want a pragmatic, centrist and moderate conservative party between the two major parties.

jbg · February 17, 2011

Or do you only care about Tory scandals?

I suspect he/she/it is an NDP voter, as am I.

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

I suspect he/she/it is an NDP voter, as am I.

You're an NDP voter now? Interesting.... I didn't know we allowed foreign nationals a vote.

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

What exactly did Chretien or Martin steal?

Still waiting for a Booster Club member to inform us about what either of these two stole. Thanks.

BubberMiley · February 17, 2011

You're an NDP voter now? Interesting.... I didn't know we allowed foreign nationals a vote.

He's American, not "American," just as he's left-wing, not "left-wing."

scribblet · February 17, 2011

The question is "Should cabinet ministers falsify documents to try to hide the fact that they've made a political, not a practical decision, and then lie about it?"

My answer is NO! NO, no, no! What's yours?

..................................................^

.................................................. not

Again, she did NOT falsify any documents to deny funding, as much as the opposition might want it to be. She denied funding as is her ministerial right, something that happens in all gov'ts, we don't usually hear about all the thousands of funding decisions, none of which ever make a good story for the papers.

The Minister runs the dept., always has, she did nothing illegal or improper, even though the opposition seems to think she used the wrong crayon or something.

The only thing improper here is misleading parliament, lying, if that is found to be so, then she should step down. That, is the only newsworthy issue, everything else is foaming at the mouth over a minor funding issue because the wolves are smelling an election. They should be careful what they wish for.

Wild Bill · February 17, 2011

... everything else is foaming at the mouth over a minor funding issue because the wolves are smelling an election. They should be careful what they wish for.

Shh, Scrib! When your opponent is about to do something that will hurt himself, why warn him?

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

Again, she did NOT falsify any documents to deny funding, as much as the opposition might want it to be. She denied funding as is her ministerial right, something that happens in all gov'ts, we don't usually hear about all the thousands of funding decisions, none of which ever make a good story for the papers.

The Minister runs the dept., always has, she did nothing illegal or improper, even though the opposition seems to think she used the wrong crayon or something.

The only thing improper here is misleading parliament, lying, if that is found to be so, then she should step down. That, is the only newsworthy issue, everything else is foaming at the mouth over a minor funding issue because the wolves are smelling an election. They should be careful what they wish for.

As stated before, the bigger deal is most certainly the lying. Having said that, changing a document after two other signatories have signed it is falsifying it. There are no if, and or buts on this.

Transparent and open indeed.

Wild Bill · February 17, 2011

What exactly did Chretien or Martin steal?

We're drifting a bit here but anyway, I don't know about Martin but I am absolutely convinced that Chretien authorized AdScam! The scheme was too grandiose and complicated for the party leader NOT to be involved! Being intelligent men, party leaders well know how to shield themselves with "plausible deniability". IOW, unlike Nixon, Chretien was smart enough to wipe the tapes! Chretien had already proven how devious he could be with his land sale/golf course scandal, where he got the bank manager fired for not approving his customer, despite that customer having a very bad credit history.

I'm sure he had some kind of rationalization, like the Liberals needed the money to stay in power because only THEY could save Canada from breaking up!

I just can't believe that a scheme that involved so much money involved only the few low-level party apparatchiks like Gagliano, Jacques Corriveau and Joe Morselli. People forget that the findings of Judge Gomery were only what was PROVEN, NOT all that happened! He did NOT catch all the Liberals involved and the $40 million dollars the Liberals stole was NOT all of it but only what he could trace! Given the convoluted nature of the scheme and how well things were hidden the few peons and dollars he did find was the best he could do.

BTW, has any one heard anything about the Liberals having returned that $40 million yet?

Just because Liberal supporters want to rewrite history and sweep it all under the carpet doesn't mean that there's still not a big bump they have to walk around!

Edited February 17, 2011 by Wild Bill

Smallc · February 17, 2011

The Liberals returned the money that could be traced...and your gut isn't based on anything, seeing as Chretien was exonerated.

cybercoma · February 17, 2011

I was looking into this further and actually saw an image of the document in question. If a forgery is meant as deception, this certainly was no forgery. It appears as though she wrote in "NOT" to very clearly identify that she decided to deny funding, not to make it seem as though the "NOT" was part of the committee's recommendation. It is so glaringly obvious that the "NOT" is not part of the original document that these attempts at claiming forgery come off as blatant partisanship. I disagree with much of what the Harper government does, but people read a headline and fly off the handle without looking any further into the matter. Rather than fire Oda, they should merely put a system into place to make ministers' decisions clearer on these sorts of documents.

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

I was looking into this further and actually saw an image of the document in question. If a forgery is meant as deception, this certainly was no forgery. It appears as though she wrote in "NOT" to very clearly identify that she decided to deny funding, not to make it seem as though the "NOT" was part of the committee's recommendation. It is so glaringly obvious that the "NOT" is not part of the original document that these attempts at claiming forgery come off as blatant partisanship. I disagree with much of what the Harper government does, but people read a headline and fly off the handle without looking any further into the matter. Rather than fire Oda, they should merely put a system into place to make ministers' decisions clearer on these sorts of documents.

It certainly was approved and expected, this is proven by the other two signatures. If she wished then to deny the funding, which is the Governments right, it should have been sent back and never allowed to get to that point. Nor should she have deceived the House and the Committee. It's actually pretty simple.

Shakeyhands · February 17, 2011

We're drifting a bit here but anyway, I don't know about Martin but I am absolutely convinced that Chretien authorized AdScam! The scheme was too grandiose and complicated for the party leader NOT to be involved! Being intelligent men, party leaders well know how to shield themselves with "plausible deniability". IOW, unlike Nixon, Chretien was smart enough to wipe the tapes! Chretien had already proven how devious he could be with his land sale/golf course scandal, where he got the bank manager fired for not approving his customer, despite that customer having a very bad credit history.

I'm sure he had some kind of rationalization, like the Liberals needed the money to stay in power because only THEY could save Canada from breaking up!

I just can't believe that a scheme that involved so much money involved only the few low-level party apparatchiks like Gagliano, Jacques Corriveau and Joe Morselli. People forget that the findings of Judge Gomery were only what was PROVEN, NOT all that happened! He did NOT catch all the Liberals involved and the $40 million dollars the Liberals stole was NOT all of it but only what he could trace! Given the convoluted nature of the scheme and how well things were hidden the few peons and dollars he did find was the best he could do.

BTW, has any one heard anything about the Liberals having returned that $40 million yet?

Just because Liberal supporters want to rewrite history and sweep it all under the carpet doesn't mean that there's still not a big bump they have to walk around!

We are drifting, but it's your boys who are bringing it up.

I'll summarize the situation for you all. Chretien and Martin had nothing to do with it per Gomerys findings. Yet you all still try to accuse them of being complicent. Odd.

madmax · February 17, 2011

Again, she did NOT falsify any documents to deny funding,

.......

as much as the opposition might want it to be.

The only thing improper here is misleading parliament, lying,

So who does Oda point the finger at who falsified NOT into the document?

And which Oda lie is not a lie and which one is not?

madmax · February 17, 2011

The Liberals returned the money that could be traced...and your gut isn't based on anything, seeing as Chretien was exonerated.

Way off topic.

Conservative tactics have been to shift the topic of discussion to mask Odas Transgressions.

Regardless, Mulroney was Exonerated too...

However, some like to beat a dead horse on something that they piggy backed on to get into office.

Now that they are in office.

Their poop has no smell.

Circle the wagons for Oda

Why? I am not sure, a dirty blue "swayed " shoe could get elected in her riding.

Turf Oda out of Caucus!

Anyone in the real world would have been terminated for such actions.

GWiz · February 17, 2011

We're drifting a bit here but anyway, I don't know about Martin but I am absolutely convinced that Chretien authorized AdScam! The scheme was too grandiose and complicated for the party leader NOT to be involved! Being intelligent men, party leaders well know how to shield themselves with "plausible deniability". IOW, unlike Nixon, Chretien was smart enough to wipe the tapes! Chretien had already proven how devious he could be with his land sale/golf course scandal, where he got the bank manager fired for not approving his customer, despite that customer having a very bad credit history.

I'm sure he had some kind of rationalization, like the Liberals needed the money to stay in power because only THEY could save Canada from breaking up!

I just can't believe that a scheme that involved so much money involved only the few low-level party apparatchiks like Gagliano, Jacques Corriveau and Joe Morselli. People forget that the findings of Judge Gomery were only what was PROVEN, NOT all that happened! He did NOT catch all the Liberals involved and the $40 million dollars the Liberals stole was NOT all of it but only what he could trace! Given the convoluted nature of the scheme and how well things were hidden the few peons and dollars he did find was the best he could do.

BTW, has any one heard anything about the Liberals having returned that $40 million yet?

Just because Liberal supporters want to rewrite history and sweep it all under the carpet doesn't mean that there's still not a big bump they have to walk around!

Hmmmm, interesting, so by those same standards you'd have no problem applying the same criteria to Lyin' Brian Moroney and the ENTIRE AirBus affair involving BILLIONS right?

Good, lets get THAT money back...

g_bambino · February 17, 2011

Conservative tactics have been to shift the topic of discussion to mask Odas Transgressions.

And some Liberals' tactics have been to misrepresent facts in order to overinflate Oda's trasgressions.

Shwa · February 17, 2011

August is right, most people don't care and are probably happy they aren't getting the 7 milllion. The only people who care about denying funding to a religious group are those baying at the moon with the pack, out for political blood....

Again, if she mislead or lied to Parliament she should step down, as for the rest of it, garbage.

<snip>

Who cares whether they deny "funding to a religious group?" Perhaps the religious groups themselves that have formed Kairos, and perhaps all their members:

Anglican Church of Canada

Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Canadian Religious Conference

Christian Reformed Church in North America

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

Mennonite Central Committee of Canada

The Presbyterian Church in Canada

The Primate's World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF)

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

United Church of Canada

Now if I were looking at all the groups that participate in KAIROS, and I was a politician, I might be very careful about what I say or who I deny funding for - even IF they espouse foreign policies different from mine, EVEN IF I happen to disagree with some things they say.

Anglicans, Catholics, Uniteds, Presbyterians et al form a significant block of voters and while some of them may be staunch right wing neocons, likely most of them are in the centre and might take something like this a repudiation of their faith. Hey, they are taxpayers too and if they see other smaller non-Christian "religious groups" getting government funding when they have been cut off, you can be sure it will make the rounds within church memberships.