jbg Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 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. Shh, Scrib! When your opponent is about to do something that will hurt himself, why warn him? Somehow I don't think "Molly" has control of enough MP's to force a non-confidence vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 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.IF that's what happpened, the word for it in the U.S. is forgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted 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!Given the amount of money that was involved, and the fact that Martin was Finance Minister, either Martin knew and he was responsible or Martin didn't know and he was irresponsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 IF that's what happpened, the word for it in the U.S. is forgery. I agree, if it was doctored to look like it was original. This does not look original though. It's quite clear that "NOT" was written in after-the-fact. Obviously the signatories had signed before this was written onto the document. It seems to me this is just a case of there not being a clear system for the minister to write her comments in her refusal, or as a matter of expediency and pragmatism she just wrote it into the letter. What I'm not clear on with all these news stories is whether she tried to pass it off as though the other signatories saw the "NOT" pecilled in and were signing to that. If she did make such a claim or tried to pass it off that way, then it is a forgery and she's a liar and ought to, at the very least, lose her position in the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I agree, if it was doctored to look like it was original. This does not look original though. It's quite clear that "NOT" was written in after-the-fact. **************What I'm not clear on with all these news stories is whether she tried to pass it off as though the other signatories saw the "NOT" pecilled in and were signing to that. If she did make such a claim or tried to pass it off that way, then it is a forgery and she's a liar and ought to, at the very least, lose her position in the government. If the word "not" was written in over a pre-existing signature in a way that alters the meaning of the original it's a forgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 If someone was just making notes on a document that is one thing. If they changed it and then represented it as the opinion of those who wrote and signed it originally, that is something else indeed. Technically speaking, the actual document should not be altered, beyond perhaps date stamps like "Received On" or some such. The introduction of new text on an already signed document certainly isn't appropriate and in a legal/corporate environment would definitely get the offender's hands slapped. At best, Oda is pretty damned irresponsible and cavalier with official documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 To my nose that BAD SMELL comes from Harper, being a Moroney trained "agent" and all Far from it. Preston Manning trained him. And the smell is coming from Liberal line. Lie after lie, after lie...... not to mention the way he's sneakily selling Canada out in much the same way Lyin' Brian did while driving Canada into another debt Really funny. Liberals left higher debt than Mulroney, despite the GST that only Liberals could take full advantage of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I agree, if it was doctored to look like it was original. This does not look original though. It's quite clear that "NOT" was written in after-the-fact. Obviously the signatories had signed before this was written onto the document. It seems to me this is just a case of there not being a clear system for the minister to write her comments in her refusal, or as a matter of expediency and pragmatism she just wrote it into the letter. What I'm not clear on with all these news stories is whether she tried to pass it off as though the other signatories saw the "NOT" pecilled in and were signing to that. If she did make such a claim or tried to pass it off that way, then it is a forgery and she's a liar and ought to, at the very least, lose her position in the government. Her statements have tended more towards "I dunno how or when that got on there", that is until she actually admitted to Parliament that she was in fact the one who had put "not" on the document. That's the crux of the matter. It may be ethically questionable for even a Minister of the Crown to alter documents after they've been signed, and from a record-keeping position I'd be rather cross at Oda for not doing things in the appropriate way (after all, it would only take one extra piece of paper to write a new letter making clear the other document was in error), but I'd be willing to give Oda the benefit of the doubt that she's just a complete idiot when it comes to treatment of official government documents, but the problem is that she didn't just come out and admit that she had done something stupid, but rather let stand for some time before finally deciding to come clean. The Speaker may ultimately decide to let her off because she did ultimately fess up, though the fact that she took this long, and waited until the issue was really heating up doesn't exactly play in her favor. But at best this shows a lapse on the Minister's part, and suggests that she is not really fit for the position she has been given. The only reason I can think of right now that Harper hasn't got her out of there is because he's got his fur up again and would rather defend an errant, possibly dishonest minister, than to the do appropriate thing and at least ask her to stand aside until the matter is fully investigated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Far from it. Preston Manning trained him. I think that's a pretty big stretch. Manning may have been a mentor for a while (though not Harper's first political mentor) but the two men have little nice to say about one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 IF that's what happpened, the word for it in the U.S. is forgery. I don't think this would constitute forgery. There are various laws about document tampering that don't meet the threshold of forgery that might apply. Let's be clear here, Oda was well within her rights as Minister to refuse this funding, so having a document that says "not" on it in and of itself is not any kind of ethical breach, and remember for something as serious as a forgery charge you have to demonstrate that there was intent, and what intent would a Minister who already has the power to grant or refuse funding have to forging a document? I think it was a stupid mistake, one that calls the Minister's abilities into question, to be sure, but in and of itself not exactly the end of the world. The end of the world was her trying to hide her stupid mistake from Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 ...so having a document that says "not" on it in and of itself is not any kind of ethical breach... and in the context of stating... or leaving the impression... that CIDA was responsible for the decision??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 and in the context of stating... or leaving the impression... that CIDA was responsible for the decision??? I think that alone wouldn't be enough to make the point. It's Oda's behavior in general since the document turned up that leaves the troubling impression that she was, in what Andrew Coyne has pointed out, seems to be a troubling trend among Conservative ministers to make political decisions look like bureaucratic ones. But as we saw from the census debacle, even obvious political tampering and blame-passing isn't in and of itself enough to be fatal to a Minister. I do not think the document in and of itself would have lead very far. If Oda had admitted up front that she had written the "not" in the document, the Opposition would have bounced around a bit, she would have been embarrassed, Harper would have defended her, but it wouldn't have lasted long. But trying to deceive Parliament, that enters a whole new realm. Even if she gets out of it with just a censure for being such a naughty minister, it would make history. I seem to vaguely recall that there was a minister held in contempt in one of the Australian states over similar conduct, but I can't find reference to it, but if it has happened anywhere in the Commonwealth parliaments in recent times with any frequency I would be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 If the word "not" was written in over a pre-existing signature in a way that alters the meaning of the original it's a forgery. Cant be a forgery if only one party has possession. Its an internal document and as such can say anythihng, howver it cannot go to a third party like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Her statements have tended more towards "I dunno how or when that got on there", that is until she actually admitted to Parliament that she was in fact the one who had put "not" on the document. That's the crux of the matter. It may be ethically questionable for even a Minister of the Crown to alter documents after they've been signed, and from a record-keeping position I'd be rather cross at Oda for not doing things in the appropriate way (after all, it would only take one extra piece of paper to write a new letter making clear the other document was in error), but I'd be willing to give Oda the benefit of the doubt that she's just a complete idiot when it comes to treatment of official government documents, but the problem is that she didn't just come out and admit that she had done something stupid, but rather let stand for some time before finally deciding to come clean. The Speaker may ultimately decide to let her off because she did ultimately fess up, though the fact that she took this long, and waited until the issue was really heating up doesn't exactly play in her favor. But at best this shows a lapse on the Minister's part, and suggests that she is not really fit for the position she has been given. The only reason I can think of right now that Harper hasn't got her out of there is because he's got his fur up again and would rather defend an errant, possibly dishonest minister, than to the do appropriate thing and at least ask her to stand aside until the matter is fully investigated. Given everything you've said, I agree with you completely. About her losing her job, let's be honest; the Conservative Party does not have enough women and minorities in its ranks to push them to the backbenches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think that's a pretty big stretch. Manning may have been a mentor for a while (though not Harper's first political mentor) but the two men have little nice to say about one another. They told you that? Maybe you were thinking of Chretien Martin war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't think this would constitute forgery. There are various laws about document tampering that don't meet the threshold of forgery that might apply. Let's be clear here, Oda was well within her rights as Minister to refuse this funding, so having a document that says "not" on it in and of itself is not any kind of ethical breach, and remember for something as serious as a forgery charge you have to demonstrate that there was intent, and what intent would a Minister who already has the power to grant or refuse funding have to forging a document? I think it was a stupid mistake, one that calls the Minister's abilities into question, to be sure, but in and of itself not exactly the end of the world. The end of the world was her trying to hide her stupid mistake from Parliament. the thing is she lied and tried to blame others for the doctored document...we should expect more honesty and integrity from a minister....helena guergis and Maxime Bernier did less IMO and where are they now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Given everything you've said, I agree with you completely. About her losing her job, let's be honest; the Conservative Party does not have enough women and minorities in its ranks to push them to the backbenches. That may certainly be part of it. Harper's caucus isn't exactly a splendorific example of multigender multiethnic equality, but if he can look beyond the Opposition cornering another one of his ministers, he has to see that the best Oda can claim is tremendous stupidity for both altering the document and for trying to B.S. the House, and that's not a formulation that makes for a suitable minister. As much as anything, turfing Oda is a smart management decision. To continue to stick a flagpole up her butt and wave her about as a fine example of Tory DNA is just crazy, considering what she's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 They told you that? Maybe you were thinking of Chretien Martin war. Harper walked away from Parliament over his differences with Manning and the two have been cool towards each other for years. Harper only reappeared once the Manning was gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 the thing is she lied and tried to blame others for the doctored document...we should expect more honesty and integrity from a minister....helena guergis and Maxime Bernier did less IMO and where are they now... Like I said, the real sin here isn't the document tampering (that's not good, don't think I'm defending it), but rather misleading Parliament. If she had admitted up front that she had done it, certainly it would call into question her understanding of the importance of accurate documents and records (this shouldn't be news, no one in the business or governmental worlds should imagine that writing new text in an official document is good practice), but her ethical fitness as a Minister of the Crown would not have been called so much into question. But by deceiving Parliament, by continually denying what she had done repeatedly, by insinuating that lower officials in the Ministry had in fact decided that KAIROS was no longer a suitable candidate for funds, she deliberately mislead the House, and for that she may well have to answer to. The Speaker has now received the appropriate report from Committee and it seems fairly likely to me that he will find a prima facie breach of privilege, and whether Harper likes it or not, she will be fed to the hungry dogs in the Opposition benches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 That may certainly be part of it. Harper's caucus isn't exactly a splendorific example of multigender multiethnic equality, but if he can look beyond the Opposition cornering another one of his ministers, he has to see that the best Oda can claim is tremendous stupidity for both altering the document and for trying to B.S. the House, and that's not a formulation that makes for a suitable minister. As much as anything, turfing Oda is a smart management decision. To continue to stick a flagpole up her butt and wave her about as a fine example of Tory DNA is just crazy, considering what she's done. A little of that and a little of putting precious Ontario seats in cabinet positions makes for a lot of head scratching today, but good chess come election time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 A little of that and a little of putting precious Ontario seats in cabinet positions makes for a lot of head scratching today, but good chess come election time. Maybe, but by the time Oda's been put through the mill, I don't think the grist will gain many votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Maybe, but by the time Oda's been put through the mill, I don't think the grist will gain many votes. Never underestimate the amount of support an incumbant (especially a cabinet minister) will get in his/her riding, no matter how stupid the rest of the nations finds that MP's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 She didn't waste one tax penny. Compared to Oda, Chretien and Rock would have to be hanged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Far from it. Preston Manning trained him. And the smell is coming from Liberal line. Lie after lie, after lie...... Really funny. Liberals left higher debt than Mulroney, despite the GST that only Liberals could take full advantage of. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17967&view=findpost&p=627091 Why don't you go cry to the mod again? I'm not interested in wiping little trolls noses... Besides, as I've already told YOU 1/2 a dozen times I don't respond to snipets of my posts... On second thought maybe I should let the mod know about YOU, eh... That might really be FUN... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 She didn't waste one tax penny. Compared to Oda, Chretien and Rock would have to be hanged This is relevant how exactly? Are you saying being a liar is okay if it doesn't cost any money? I'm not sure what your point is, other than the fact that somehow you want to bring up the misdeeds of two politicians who have been out of Federal politics for the better part of a decade. Does this constitute a defense? Do you suppose such a defense would, for instance, stand up in court? Would you accept such a defense if you were a judge? Do you think immoral acts are okay as long as they are not perceived to have cost money? Is dishonour only measure by the amount of cash it ends up costing? Please do elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.