GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 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. Not to mention funding ARENAS and the like - kinda shows where the CONS priorities lie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 At least this small-c conservative doesn't seem to have trouble parsing the situation: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/16/a-test-of-our-democracy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 At least this small-c conservative doesn't seem to have trouble parsing the situation: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/16/a-test-of-our-democracy/ - 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. - From: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/16/a-test-of-our-democracy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) This Bev Oda thing is so much of a non issue. Some obscure NGO that hardly anybody has ever heard of isn't getting more of our money. Who cares? I for one am happy that the government is showing some restraint over who gets our money. Edited February 17, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 This Bev Oda thing is so much of a non issue. Some obscure NGO that hardly anybody has ever heard of isn't getting more of our money. Who cares? I for one am happy that the government is showing some restraint over who gets our money. Ummm, Canadians like me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 This Bev Oda thing is so much of a non issue. Some obscure NGO that hardly anybody has ever heard of isn't getting more of our money. Who cares? I for one am happy that the government is showing some restraint over who gets our money. I don't really care that these guys lost their funding. What I care about is that a Minister of the Crown deliberately mislead Parliament. Oda needs to resign or removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 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. Fair enough. Let me make sure I understand you correctly, though. Your problem is not so much with her scribbling the "NOT" into the letter, but the fact that she did so after other signatures were applied, making it look like those others saw the "NOT" when they signed it? In this way, she misattributed the denial of funds to others that had actually requested approval? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted 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. I think the "alteration" as such is pretty small potatoes. It doesn't exactly show Oda in a good light, but it's hardly in and of itself a crime of any large degree. It isn't right, of course, to alter signed documents, and if Oda doesn't know any better than that, then I'm not sure what she is doing in Cabinet, but putting that aside, the larger issue was her denials. If she had owned up to this amateurish defacement (which is what I consider it), people would have thought her foolish, and some probably would have moaned and groaned about the politicization of such funding, or whatever, but she wouldn't now be facing a potential contempt of Parliament process over it. The issue isn't the altered document, or who Oda or anyone in Cabinet deems fit for funding, those are political debates and ultimately the government of the day has a good deal of clout to make political decisions. The issue is that she was unwilling to own up to her part in it, and mislead Parliament. That is the real matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 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... Sounds good to me! I'm no fan of Brian, or his lame-ass son who introduces Paris Hilton clones on CTV entertainment specials. You should understand, I'm NOT a Conservative! If anything, I'm a classic Liberal (an animal which hasn't been seen in Ottawa in generations) and a populist. Hey, I got one of the first Reform memberships issued when they decided to advance into Ontario. How on earth would a guy like me be a Mulroney supporter? Actually, I did vote for him for both of his majorities. I had become disillusioned with the Trudeau/Turner Liberals and thought Brian would be something fresh and different. By the end of his second mandate I realized, like so many other Canadians, that it was a case of the "new boss" being the "same as the old boss", only slicker! I think of Mulroney and Chretien as being the two most prominent examples of successful OLD-style politicians! As I have repeatedly said, I support the present CPC only because they smell less to my nose than the alternatives. I firmly believe that Harper has turned the merged Conservative Party into a clone of the old PCs, with little or no sign of the old Reform philosophies left within it. If another Manning ever came out of the wilderness, or if the Liberals decided to actually BE classic Liberals, the CPC would lose my vote in a hummingbird's heartbeat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 This Bev Oda thing is so much of a non issue. Some obscure NGO that hardly anybody has ever heard of isn't getting more of our money. Who cares? I for one am happy that the government is showing some restraint over who gets our money. Nobody cares about the NGO. I'm sure most people couldn't even name the NGO. That part of this issue is a non-issue. The "Bev Oda thing" very much is the issue though. A minister being caught intentionally misleading the house is a big deal. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it was intentional deception. I think she merely meant to deny the funding herself, contrary to the committee. I just think it was a lack of precision on her part the way she did it. I could be wrong, but that part of this entire discussion seems to lack clarity. The way the document looks, it should be obvious to everyone that she did not mean to make it look like part of the original. It was not some sort of forgery or crafty deception. However, if I'm understanding Shakey right, it looks as though the others that signed the document saw this "NOT" that was scribbled in and agree with it. I think it's more or less just a big misunderstanding rather than outright and intentional deception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted 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? It is the strangest part of the story. Oda, as Minister, certainly has the authority to deny funding, and even if a document had been signed by minions underneath, she could have drafted a new document denying funding at her pleasure, explaining, if she even needed to, that the agreement had been signed without her approval. Like I said in another post, the denial of funds is a bureaucratic and to some degree political decision. The Minister specifically but in general the PM and Cabinet set policy, and if they felt KAIROS did not fit their policies on funding, then we can have a debate about whether that policy is right or wrong. Frankly, I tend to agree that Oda made the right decision, I don't think KAIROS should get funding for a number of reasons unimportant to this discussion. The amateurish defacement of a public document is stupid, maybe even wrong in a mild sort of way (mainly because it could hardly be called an alteration in and of itself). And yet I can only assume that Oda felt sufficiently embarrassed by the act of defacement that she felt the need to absolve herself of blame by essentially lying about who had done it, declaring her ignorance, which she has now turned around and corrected us. She has, in effect, indicted herself by admitting that she was the one that altered the document. There was no need to lie. She should have fessed up, faced a tiny storm that would have passed quickly enough. I doubt the Opposition cares any more about KAIROS then the Tories do. But seeing as she didn't until it was too late, until it was clear that her original statements had been knowingly false, she now has to face the consequences of misleading Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpio Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Topaz, we saw Liberals be thieves! They STOLE money from Canadians in AdScam! That's rather amazing considering the only three convicted re sponorship program weren't even Liberal: Coffin had been president of a Tory riding in Montreal, Guite had been a civil servant appointed by Mulroney, and Brault had been a well-known pequiste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 The "Bev Oda thing" very much is the issue though. A minister being caught intentionally misleading the house is a big deal. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it was intentional deception. I think she merely meant to deny the funding herself, contrary to the committee. Fair enough I, like you, am not convinced either as there is no "ah ha" moment about it just a lot of ranting and raving by the opposition parties. Much of it without substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Fair enough I, like you, am not convinced either as there is no "ah ha" moment about it just a lot of ranting and raving by the opposition parties. Much of it without substance. So it will be "Oda isn't a liar, Oda is a pretty incompetent minister" defense? If I buy that particular narrative, can you explain to me why Bev Oda is still in Cabinet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 That's what you think, CR. Out here in the real world, politicians regularly change/re-interpret their words to Parliament or anyone else. (Ignatieff has made a career of it.) IOW, nobody (other than a narrow group of politico/Harper-haters) gives a tinker's cuss whether Oda knows who inserted the word "No". It is positively unseemly to see Ignatieff berating a woman who looks like my grandmother for such a trifle. The optics are terrible. Either Ignatieff is politically tone deaf or some people in the Liberal Party are egging him on to commit political suicide. Every day this carries on, more (undecided) voters are moving to the Conservative column. So if a PM stacks his cabinet with "grandmotherly" ministers, optics will protect the government from scandal? Your position is bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 You know what people, I don't care if Oda was a NDP, Green, Liberal, Tory or Bloc, she lied either trying to protect herself or Harper and for that alone, when members of the House of Commons lie they need to go. Forging a document is another matter. No matter how you spin this, SHE LIED. What does this say about a party that knows she lied and I think Harper is behind this and the members will also take the bullet for Harper, but I think one day she may regret it. Time will only tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sounds good to me! I'm no fan of Brian, or his lame-ass son who introduces Paris Hilton clones on CTV entertainment specials. You should understand, I'm NOT a Conservative! If anything, I'm a classic Liberal (an animal which hasn't been seen in Ottawa in generations) and a populist. Hey, I got one of the first Reform memberships issued when they decided to advance into Ontario. How on earth would a guy like me be a Mulroney supporter? Actually, I did vote for him for both of his majorities. I had become disillusioned with the Trudeau/Turner Liberals and thought Brian would be something fresh and different. By the end of his second mandate I realized, like so many other Canadians, that it was a case of the "new boss" being the "same as the old boss", only slicker! I think of Mulroney and Chretien as being the two most prominent examples of successful OLD-style politicians! As I have repeatedly said, I support the present CPC only because they smell less to my nose than the alternatives. I firmly believe that Harper has turned the merged Conservative Party into a clone of the old PCs, with little or no sign of the old Reform philosophies left within it. If another Manning ever came out of the wilderness, or if the Liberals decided to actually BE classic Liberals, the CPC would lose my vote in a hummingbird's heartbeat! To my nose that BAD SMELL comes from Harper, being a Moroney trained "agent" and all, 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 ridden period that the Liberals will AGAIN have to bring Canada out of (if it's still doable at that TIME)... Other than THAT we're not all that different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 A minister being caught intentionally misleading the house is a big deal. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it was intentional deception. I think she merely meant to deny the funding herself, contrary to the committee. I just think it was a lack of precision on her part the way she did it. I could be wrong, but that part of this entire discussion seems to lack clarity. I agree. Milliken will soon have to rule on whether there is enough evidence to warrant a review of the facts and whether Oda is in breach of Parliamentary rules. (The matter is being debated now in the House under an opposition Question of Privilege.) I hope he agrees and refers the matter to the appropriate House committee to establish the facts once and for all. While awaiting the committee review and decision, perhaps the clowns on the Hill could turn their attention to other pressing issues facing this nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 You know what people, I don't care if Oda was a NDP, Green, Liberal, Tory or Bloc, she lied either trying to protect herself or Harper and for that alone, when members of the House of Commons lie they need to go. Forging a document is another matter. No matter how you spin this, SHE LIED. What does this say about a party that knows she lied and I think Harper is behind this and the members will also take the bullet for Harper, but I think one day she may regret it. Time will only tell. The Tory narrative, put, of course, in the nicest possible terms, is that Oda was vague on the issue. It's the classic Kenneth Lay defense*. I'm even willing to accept that Oda is merely deeply confused and unsure, and pretty iffy on the appropriate way to make and record ministerial decisions. If that is the ultimate defense, then I question why exactly someone so lacking in basic abilities is in Cabinet. Yes, maybe she's not a crook, but she does seem to be a rather poor minister. Milliken may even use this out. I doubt he wants to be the first Speaker to oversee a Minister being found in contempt of Parliament. But no matter how you stack it, Oda comes out looking pretty inept. If she's a document tamperer, then she's a damned bad one. If she's a liar, then you basically dug her on grave with her admission to the House that she her previous statements had been wrong. If she does turn out to be simply incompetent, then it hardly reflects well on the Prime Minister's ability to head a cabinet when he doesn't remove of a rather shoddy minister. * For those that might not remember, Kenneth Lay was the CEO of Enron whose ultimate defense of that company's many misdeeds and his part in them was that essentially that he was a crappy CEO who didn't do his job and make sure his underlings behaved themselves. In other words "I'm a moron, not a crook." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I agree. Milliken will soon have to rule on whether there is enough evidence to warrant a review of the facts and whether Oda is in breach of Parliamentary rules. (The matter is being debated now in the House under an opposition Question of Privilege.) I hope he agrees and refers the matter to the appropriate House committee to establish the facts once and for all. While awaiting the committee review and decision, perhaps the clowns on the Hill could turn their attention to other pressing issues facing this nation. The Government's response was a little pathetic, "We'll be back, and oh, in camera sessions are private!" without so much as an example of where Opposition members had been leaking in camera information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 * For those that might not remember, Kenneth Lay was the CEO of Enron whose ultimate defense of that company's many misdeeds and his part in them was that essentially that he was a crappy CEO who didn't do his job and make sure his underlings behaved themselves. In other words "I'm a moron, not a crook." Well, that didn't take long. Somebody had to spice up this very tame tempest in a teapot with a nice sexy American reference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Well, that didn't take long. Somebody had to spice up this very tame tempest in a teapot with a nice sexy American reference! Which was soon followed bush_cheney2004's attempt at a Chewbacca Defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 You're an NDP voter now? Interesting.... I didn't know we allowed foreign nationals a vote. If I were Canadian I would be an NDP voter. Should have been more clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Which was soon followed bush_cheney2004's attempt at a Chewbacca Defense. Another American namedrop? George Lucas? Bev Oda...meet Abe Vigoda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Another American namedrop? George Lucas? Sort of. It's actually from South Park. Bev Oda...meet Abe Vigoda! No reason to put good ol' Abe by that kind of association. 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.