Wafergate, Oda, Guergis, Raitt & Pepper Spray

[madmax]

The whole opposition stampede.

This Opposition ?

Guergis has submitted an Access to Information request to the RCMP for access to the investigation her party launched into her so-called misconduct but was astounded to discover her “accusers” get to say whether the information should be released.

ah yes.. the Conservatives....

Her former party....

[William Ashley]

I thought the Oda thing was for the Odie vote? Who knew?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=odie&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

Edited February 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

It is a cesspool of lies. Anyone who doesn't see it is fooling themselves.

So is life. We make our own politics.

[Saipan]

Guergis has submitted an Access to Information request to the RCMP for access to the investigation her party launched into her so-called misconduct

After incessant demand by the opposition.

[William Ashley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCx6syTeyUw&feature=relmfu

I think the situation is much more complex.

Edited February 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

[Bryan]

That is exactly what happened. Check the Hansard. She lied, period.

See, I HAVE read the transcripts. I'm wondering if those who are claiming that the lied actually have.

[Shakeyhands]

See, I HAVE read the transcripts. I'm wondering if those who are claiming that the lied actually have.

Oh I see your argument now... parroted of course from the CPC talking points about not asking the right question the right way...

Lukiwski argued that those earlier responses were technically correct, based on the questions asked.

Maybe you'll believe thiiiiiiiissssssssss story?

as an aside.... Lukiwski... unbelievable that he is still around.

[Bryan]

Oh I see your argument now... parroted of course from the CPC talking points about not asking the right question the right way...

Maybe you'll believe thiiiiiiiissssssssss story?

as an aside.... Lukiwski... unbelievable that he is still around.

You need to stop reading the Red Star, and read the actual transcripts.

Oda very clearly and concisely answered McKay's questions. If anything, it's Mckay who is lying throughout that interview by deliberately twisting her responses and rephrasing them to give a different meaning.

She did not alter the document. That is a fact. She did order the change, that she has never denied. She did not recall on the spot who had made the change in her absence, but steadfastly maintained that she takes full responsibility for the decision.

The only thing in question is wether or not she could remember who actually made the change that she requested. Considering the thousands upon thousands of decisions a minister makes, that many of them are "signed" on the minister's behalf by staffers, that this decision was made two years ago, and that Oda herself was out of the country at the time this particular document came through her office, it would be remarkable if she could say for certain whose hand made the circle.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Bryan

[nicky10013]

You need to stop reading the Red Star, and read the actual transcripts.

Oda very clearly and concisely answered McKay's questions. If anything, it's Mckay who is lying throughout that interview by deliberately twisting her responses and rephrasing them to give a different meaning.

She did not alter the document. That is a fact. She did order the change, that she has never denied. She did not recall on the spot who had made the change in her absence, but steadfastly maintained that she takes full responsibility for the decision.

The only thing in question is wether or not she could remember who actually made the change that she requested. Considering the thousands upon thousands of decisions a minister makes, that many of them are "signed" on the minister's behalf by staffers, that this decision was made two years ago, and that Oda herself was out of the country at the time this particular document came through her office, it would be remarkable if she could say for certain whose hand made the circle.

If you order someone murdered, you're still charged with murder even though you didn't kill the person. Just because she didn't physically alter the document doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the act. You're splitting hairs and failing badly.

Edited February 19, 2011 by nicky10013

[Bryan]

If you order someone murdered, you're still charged with murder even though you didn't kill the person. Just because she didn't physically alter the document doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the act. You're splitting hairs and failing badly.

Oda never denied responsibility for making the change.

[Keepitsimple]

Oda never denied responsibility for making the change.

Additionally, this whole "process" was one that would normally not be put into public view where the opposition could pick away at bureaucratic details and put things completely out of context. The saloent points are firstly... that Oda and the government, as is their right, decided not to accept the CIDA President's recommendation to fund Kairos.....and secondly, that decision was clearly relayed to Ms. Biggs, the President of CIDA - who testified that was the case and that the Minister was completely within her right to not accept the recommendation. For those who are interested in why Kairos may have fallen out of favour....here's a column by Katherine Porter at the Star who praises the work of Kairos but if you actually read the article, it's obvious that they take "political" positions - and expend taxpayer money in doing so. Canada is trying to use our scarce development funds for precisely that - to help people on the ground - not to fund political advocacy. And for further context, lets not forget that hundreds of NGO's are vying for these limited dollars - and not everyone can get funding - nor can they expect to receive it in perpetuity. So....it's not all about Israel...and as is usually the case, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine, and the truth.

A few years back, the staff at Kairos planned a trip to Nigerias oilfields to examine environmental damage, corporate responsibility and human rights abuses.

The board of the faith-based development organization rejected the idea. It sent them to Albertas tar sands instead.

I remember saying, Theyll kill us that will be considered very political, recalls Mary Corkery, Kairos passionate executive director. The churches said, This is our work. Our work is inspired by faith to tell the truth. Its a development issue if its far away. Its a political issue if its at home. Or if it offends anyone.

Many of Kairos positions are unpopular with todays ruling ethos. The agency has called for a moratorium on new tar sands development. It opposed Canadas free-trade agreement with Columbia, given the countrys dismal human rights record.

One of the only negative comments in the CIDA report card has to do with Kairos support of indigenous human rights groups opposing mines in Mexico and Guatemala. Kairos demonstrated that its position was anti-mining, rather than pro-sustainable mining, one commenter states. Kairos response, noted in the document, is: we are an NGO intent only on ensuring that Canadian mining companies operating abroad respect all applicable laws, international standards and reflect Canadian values and Canadas international commitments."

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/941629--porter-kairos-does-important-work-we-should-all-support-it

Edited February 19, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

Additionally, this whole "process" was one that would normally not be put into public view where the opposition could pick away at bureaucratic details and put things completely out of context. The saloent points are firstly... that Oda and the government, as is their right, decided not to accept the CIDA President's recommendation to fund Kairos.....and secondly, that decision was clearly relayed to Ms. Biggs, the President of CIDA - who testified that was the case and that the Minister was completely within her right to not accept the recommendation. For those who are interested in why Kairos may have fallen out of favour....here's a column by Katherine Porter at the Star who praises the work of Kairos but if you actually read the article, it's obvious that they take "political" positions - and expend taxpayer money in doing so. Canada is trying to use our scarce development funds for precisely that - to help people on the ground - not to fund political advocacy. And for further context, lets not forget that hundreds of NGO's are vying for these limited dollars - and not everyone can get funding - nor can they expect to receive it in perpetuity. So....it's not all about Israel...and as is usually the case, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine, and the truth.

There is a singular, undeniable fact, and that is that Oda lied to the House about the alteration of the document. For me, at least, the reasons for denying funding are irrelevant. Of course it is the Government's right to choose who does and who does not get funding, whether bureaucratically or politically (although the latter will naturally lead to debate). If Oda had explained immediately that she had made the change or had ordered the change to be made, then the most we would debating is the Minister's lack of administrative sense. But we're having this debate because Oda decided to carry on a fiction, for whatever reason, and ultimately breached the privileges of Parliament.

[waldo]

For those who are interested in why Kairos may have fallen out of favour....here's a column by Katherine Porter at the Star who praises the work of Kairos but if you actually read the article, it's obvious that they take "political" positions - and expend taxpayer money in doing so. Canada is trying to use our scarce development funds for precisely that - to help people on the ground - not to fund political advocacy. And for further context, lets not forget that hundreds of NGO's are vying for these limited dollars - and not everyone can get funding - nor can they expect to receive it in perpetuity. So....it's not all about Israel...and as is usually the case, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine, and the truth.

nice spin there Simple... and yes, the truth is very clear in this matter... Harper will not tolerate any advocacy (real or presumed), that doesn't espouse the Harper/Conservative line. Stephen Harper’s worst enemy

The issue here is the reversal, by Stephen Harper, of a 60-year consensus shared by all previous governments about the central role of civil society in Canada. Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities.

No more. With Stephen Harper, you either buy the party line or you get slapped down. That’s what happened to Kairos (now ironically receiving proper recognition for its terrific work over the years – eat your heart out, Jason Kenney). That’s what happened to the Canadian Council For International Co-operation and Match International. That’s what happened, with little media attention, to an astonishing number – in the many, many dozens – of other worthy organizations. (An exact figure will soon be posted by Voices, an important virtual coalition of organizations and individuals formed precisely in reaction to the Harper government’s attacks on civil society organizations. I am an enthusiastic supporter.)

Never mind that, politics aside, most of these groups were also doing crucial humanitarian work. Never mind that Kairos was working with violated women in the Congo. Never mind that many de-funded organizations were promoting maternal and child health, ostensibly Mr. Harper's big personal cause. Yet because they also pursue issues that Stephen Harper will not abide – human rights for Palestinians, women’s equality, climate change – they are anathema in his eyes.

[Mr.Canada]

We all need to tighten our belts. This isn't the time for lavish spending. I know this concept flies in the face of all the socialist mindset believes which is spend, spend, spend and raise taxes. Just look at the mess Toronto is in after Mayor Millers shopping spree and out of control rising taxes for proof.

Plus it's high time that these types of groups look to secure private funding instead of coming to the government of the day with their hand out. Respect for our money is crucial. I don't want my taxes to go up so the government needs to treat it with care.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Topaz]

True or false, ODA signed to document to ALLOW the money to the organization? Then, someone, told her different and she's said she takes responsibility for the change but did she change it herself. Did this document go to the PMO and there it was deny? I think when this first came up she didn't know who changed it and then when she did...PMO, she HAD to take the blame and the fallout and she lied to Parliament which is a no-no.

[Bryan]

There is a singular, undeniable fact, and that is that Oda lied to the House about the alteration of the document.

Of course it's deniable. She ALWAYS maintained that she didn't alter the document personally, but that she did instruct her staff to do it in her absence. What was the lie?

[madmax]

Of course it's deniable. She ALWAYS maintained that she didn't alter the document personally, but that she did instruct her staff to do it in her absence. What was the lie?

When in a hole.. stop digging..

Whats fun about this...

Conservatives must love digging holes.

[Saipan]

When in a hole.. stop digging..

Good advice. Take it.

[August1991]

Guergis? Ask Harper, its was him who turfed her.

As Saipan noted above, IMHO, the Toronto English-Canadian MSM wanted her head and Harper used the vendetta to get rid of her. I think Harper regretted the method. He should have used a cabinet shuffle or simply managed riding politics better. Why? Because once she was gone, the same anglo MSM turned her into a victim and once again accused Harper of perfidy.

As Mulroney said to Peter Newman, the Toronto media simply will not accept a Conservative politician.

Harper isn't going to give an inch on Bev Oda. He will defend her to the hilt. He will do this because he knows that he is fighting against yellow-bellied gang jackals, and because when Harper defends strongly one cabinet minister/caucus member, all the other Conservatives know that he has their back.

That is exactly what happened. Check the Hansard. She lied, period.

Oda lied? In six months, no one will remember Oda's name. If she lied, it's an irrelevant detail in the grand scheme of a country of 30 million. Shakey, the vast majority of Canadians don't care about Bev Oda or whether she inserted a "not" on to a document.

If Bev Oda stole $300 million and gave it to her brother-in-law, if Bev Oda slept with a Girl Guide or ordered Canadian troops to invade a country, then things would be different. But questions about who put a "not" onto a document to refuse taxpayer funds to a left wing group is not a "test of democracy". Ordinary people are correct to ignore this.

----

The point of this thread is that Canada's English MSM centred in Toronto seems to go off on feeding-frenzy tangents, usually about left wing causes. They seem to pick on federal women politicians. There's an obsessive-compulsive dimension to this style of journalism.

In Quebec, the French media is different. Max Bernier recently raised the question of the Law 101 and everyone jumped on him.

George Jonas ascribes this group think mentality to political correctness:

We shouldn’t underestimate the sheer terror that the soldier ants of political correctness inspire in their natural prey. As the fiery insects come marching down from the anthills of higher learning where they’ve hatched, elected officials, civil servants, academics and ministers of the Crown watch mesmerized as they stream across slimy moats of patronage into the dismal honeycombs of the civil service, where they disappear momentarily among the red-tape worms slithering in and out of dusty dossiers, until emerging in columns to invade the halls of justice and corridors of governmental power.

Link

Maybe he's right. His logic applies as much in Quebec as in Toronto.

Edited February 20, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

There is a singular, undeniable fact, and that is that Oda lied to the House about the alteration of the document. For me, at least, the reasons for denying funding are irrelevant. Of course it is the Government's right to choose who does and who does not get funding, whether bureaucratically or politically (although the latter will naturally lead to debate). If Oda had explained immediately that she had made the change or had ordered the change to be made, then the most we would debating is the Minister's lack of administrative sense. But we're having this debate because Oda decided to carry on a fiction, for whatever reason, and ultimately breached the privileges of Parliament.

Yes, and this is the crux of tha matter. The reasons for the alteration might be a political issue...but it's the Parliamentary issue that takes precedence in this case.

There's nothing especially difficult to understand here.

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, and this is the crux of tha matter. The reasons for the alteration might be a political issue...but it's the Parliamentary issue that takes precedence in this case.

There's nothing especially difficult to understand here.

Other than she was asked a specific question about whether she knew WHO precisely inserted the "not". To which she answered "no". Keep in mind that these parliamentary sessions are strictly administered with 10 minute sessions where the "witnesses" are asked to answer precise questions from lawyer-like questioners - "please just answer yes or no"...aha - gotcha. She answered "no". I still thinks it's plausible - actually believable that ODA was not sitting at her desk with the document in front of her....but made her intention clear that she didn't approve the funding....ordered the recommendation denied...but actually did NOT know who inserted the "not".....but as she has time and again stated - it was her decision...and as the President of CIDA said, it was her right and she was properly informed of the denial. I don't really know for a fact that that's what happened but in the context of many requests for funding, I can see this happening...where one of MANY minions may have inserted the "not" because they were advised of ODA's funding rejection. So at the Parliamentary hearing, she MAY not have known who did it. We'll see what the speaker rules. I think he'll rule sloppy but inconclusive.

[ToadBrother]

Other than she was asked a specific question about whether she knew WHO precisely inserted the "not". To which she answered "no". Keep in mind that these parliamentary sessions are strictly administered with 10 minute sessions where the "witnesses" are asked to answer precise questions from lawyer-like questioners - "please just answer yes or no"...aha - gotcha. She answered "no". I still thinks it's plausible - actually believable that ODA was not sitting at her desk with the document in front of her....but made her intention clear that she didn't approve the funding....ordered the recommendation denied...but actually did NOT know who inserted the "not".....but as she has time and again stated - it was her decision...and as the President of CIDA said, it was her right and she was properly informed of the denial. I don't really know for a fact that that's what happened but in the context of many requests for funding, I can see this happening...where one of MANY minions may have inserted the "not" because they were advised of ODA's funding rejection. So at the Parliamentary hearing, she MAY not have known who did it. We'll see what the speaker rules. I think he'll rule sloppy but inconclusive.

What an odd defense. "I'm a complete moron who can't determine the context of a question so you have to ask me semantically exacting questions or my very tiny brain cannot provide accurate answers."

So your defense of Oda will be that she's a moron, is that it? Can you explain why this moron is in cabinet?

[bloodyminded]

What an odd defense. "I'm a complete moron who can't determine the context of a question so you have to ask me semantically exacting questions or my very tiny brain cannot provide accurate answers."

So your defense of Oda will be that she's a moron, is that it? Can you explain why this moron is in cabinet?

Right...good lord, it's even present in the "defense" of her, such as it is [bolding mine]:

I can see this happening...where one of MANY minions may have inserted the "not" because they were advised of ODA's funding rejection

I mean...is the defense really that, yes, she ordered it, and wanted it done, and expected it to be done...but she doesn't know quite, exactly, which specific person made the physical correction?

Seriously?

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Keepitsimple]

Right...good lord, it's even present in the "defense" of her, such as it is [bolding mine]:

I mean...is the defense really that, yes, she ordered it, and wanted it done, and expected it to be done...but she doesn't know quite, exactly, which specific person made the physical correction?

Seriously?

When you step back and think about it - who really cares who put the "not" in? She wasn't present, she made the decision, and ordered it done....and when she testified, she didn't know precisely WHO did it. So who cares? Look in the other new thread where a Liberal exonerates Oda: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18051

Edited February 20, 2011 by Keepitsimple