Wafergate, Oda, Guergis, Raitt & Pepper Spray

[waldo]

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.

"doctored", flat out "doctored" document... the 2 others signing the document, did not sign the ^NOT^ version of the document. The 2 others signing the document were senior CIDA officials who both recommended KAIROS receive funding, per the original un-doctored version of the document. The 2 others signing the document approving KAIROS funding were: Margaret Biggs, CIDA President & Naresh Singh, CIDA Acting Vice-President–Canadian Partnership Branch.

=>

Speaker Miliken's ruling

on the purposely “doctored” document: “Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes.”

Hansard extracts, as linked below... both showing the purposeful misleading/(lying?) commentary advising that CIDA made the decision not to approve KAIROS funding:

=> March 15:

Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

(Bev Oda)

, CPC):

CIDA thoroughly analyzed KAIROS' program proposal and determined, with regret, that it did not meet the agency's current priorities.

=> April 23:

Mr. Glen Pearson:

With regard to KAIROS, which has lost their funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) as of November 30, 2009 due to KAIROS no longer fitting CIDA priorities: (a) what are the CIDA priorities that did not fit well with the priorities of KAIROS;

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.

(on edit: adjusted phrasing to coincide with the wording/intent of Speaker Miliken's ruling)

Edited February 20, 2011 by waldo

[ToadBrother]

"doctored", flat out "doctored" document... the 2 others signing the document, did not sign the ^NOT^ version of the document. The 2 others signing the document were senior CIDA officials who both recommended KAIROS receive funding, per the original un-doctored version of the document. The 2 others signing the document approving KAIROS funding were: Margaret Biggs, CIDA President & Naresh Singh, CIDA Acting Vice-President–Canadian Partnership Branch.

=>

Speaker Miliken's ruling

on the purposely “doctored” document: “Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes.” [/inden

Hansard extracts

, as linked below... both showing the purposeful misleading/(lying?) commentary advising that CIDA made the decision not to approve KAIROS funding:

=>

March 15

:

Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

(Bev Oda)

, CPC):

CIDA thoroughly analyzed KAIROS' program proposal and determined, with regret, that it did not meet the agency's current priorities.

=>

April 23

:

Mr. Glen Pearson:

With regard to KAIROS, which has lost their funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) as of November 30, 2009 due to KAIROS no longer fitting CIDA priorities: (a) what are the CIDA priorities that did not fit well with the priorities of KAIROS;

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.

(on edit: adjusted phrasing to coincide with the wording/intent of Speaker Miliken's ruling)

The Tory claims are indeed weakened. This was clearly not a CIDA decision, but a direct political one, and to my mind the defense brought forward by the Tories that somehow the wrong questions were asked or that Oda simply wasn't clear are inadequate. At the end of the day, I think the Speaker will very well rule that the Minister breached Privilege. The only way for her out of it may be for the Minister or her colleagues to defend her as a rather inept minister.