Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Officially ungrammatical

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, February 21, 2011 10:00am - 130 Comments

In a widely obtained internal memo, the Conservatives claim that the ungrammatical inclusion of the word “not” was in keeping with normal procedure.

“In this case, the Minister’s decision was to reject the recommendation provided to her, and direct that CIDA not provide funding to KAIROS,” it read. “The Minister had reviewed the memo, made her decision not to approve the funding application, and asked her staff to follow through on it.

“The Minister was travelling out of Ottawa on the day that her staff completed the paper work to implement her decision, so they, with the Minister’s authority, applied her automated signature, which is used when required because a Minister is unable to personally sign a document, and indicated her decision on the memo by clearly indicating that she did NOT approve the funding application.”

This is close to the explanation offered to Embassy last October when a spokeswoman for Ms. Oda claimed it to be a matter of antiquated paperwork. Last week though, Keith Beardsley, a former member of the  PMO, wrote that Ms. Oda could have simply not signed the document. Our Andrew Coyne suggests, if it was normal procedure, that there should be other documents with the same edit.

Tags: , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • madeyoulook

    OK, it's a dumb way to handle documents, and it has been improved since, possibly because of, this particular silliness.

    So why did the Minister need to imply that she went with the advice not to fund, if she really went in the direct opposite to the advice to fund?

    • John

      Not at all the point. The point is, she mislead the house of commons, repeatedly.

      The speaker will rule on this in the next couple of weeks, and she may get the boot from the HoC.

      • madeyoulook

        John, there were only two (2) sentences in my comment. It is a shame you couldn't last all the way to the second sentence. I hope you made it through to the second sentence in THIS comment. Good luck!

    • Mike T.

      I think this government just has a natural inclination to lie.

    • NorthernPoV

      Just show us ANY other example of a minister handling dept. advice this way and we'll all shut up.
      Or find the staffer to back up her story – and she how the staffer holds up under pointed questioning.

      • Holly Stick

        First find out if the staffer will get fired if she gives answers the Conservatives do not like. Remember the Harper Conservative minority government record of firing people who were honestly doing their jobs and serving the people of Canada instead of Conservative ideology.

        • wilson

          Why ask a staffer?
          Ask CIDA President Margaret Biggs, she sees ALL rejections and approvals.

    • wilson

      Perhaps by simply not signing the memo KAIROS would have been given yet another extension from CIDA, waiting for Minister Oda's approval….and continued lobbying?

      The few words at the bottom of the page, indicating Minister Oda does not approve funding, certainly would have been more advisable to insertion of a word on a CIDA memo.
      But a criminal offence? That's hard to agree to after CIDA pres Margaret Biggs said it's 'normal' and she was informed of Minister Oda's decision, where's the victim?

      • madeyoulook

        I will need convincing that there is a criminal offence anywhere in this story. But I have seen enough unparliamentary behaviour on the part of the Minister to STILL warrant a resignation.

  • Jenn_

    Have Access to Information requests been sent out covering all documentation on other denials to fund other NGOs? Aaron, could you get on that?

    • gottabesaid

      I had the same question, sort of.

      One of the common refrains I've heard is that (of course) Oda was within her rights to say no to the funding request. I've heard a lot of folks on this board say, great, we shouldn't be spending money on this kind of thing anyway. Fair enough. However, is there any indication of how many groups like KAIROS, which had been getting federal funding for some time, and was in line to get funding again, were turned down? Was it unique?

      I'm not sure whether or not the federal government has to state why a group like KAIROS was turned down. They probably don't. However, I think it would help their cause if they did explain why KAIROS didn't get the money. I mean, a lot of those blanks are being filled in by the opposition and the media… why not be clear and explain why KAIROS didn't get funding? Fill in the blanks for us.

  • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

    Presumably, persons working within this antiquated paper handling system, persons working in government, say, even those partaking in committee work and asking questions of government ministers – persons in government used to working within this antiquated paper handling system would be familiar enough with this antiquated paper handling system to not have been so alarmed to believe there was fraud, if they all have been working with and familiar with this antiquated paper handling system, and therefore understood there was a reasonable explanation, rather than having to deal with months of prevarication and obscufation.

  • Cathy

    It was a memo, not a document, big difference.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      What does that even mean? Saying "it was a memo, not a document", is like saying "it was a Corvette, not a car".

    • John D

      Actually no

    • NorthernPoV

      thanks Lord

      from wiki: "A document is a work of non-fiction writing intended to store and communicate information"

      not sure of the non-fiction part when it comes to Harperstan but otherwise a memo fits this definition rather well.

    • Dave

      Hey – you are at least the second identity trying to make that same distinction. How's the weather out on Lancaster?

    • wilson

      A memo, not a contract.
      Yes, bird cage liner until Minister Oda signed off.

      Just like a purchase contract on a home is bird cage liner until every party has signed off.

      • Jan

        Almost 3 months since Oda's parliamentary appearance and the Cons are still working on an explanation. Just sad. Nigel Wright must be tearing his hair out.

      • Thwim

        Problem is.. everybody DID sign off.

        And then she (or somebody) changed what they'd signed off to.

  • JamesHalifax

    Couple of points:

    1. Are memo’s or documents altered through pen & ink amendments?
    Yes, it happens all the time, though it usually involves initialling the change. Given the minister wasn’t available, it should have been the beaurocrats that made the change.

    2. Did CIDA initally approve of the funding?
    Yes, though the Minister has the last word. When she said, No…then CIDA said no.

    3. Was the original document altered?
    Yes, but as mentioned above, it is quite normal. It is not a forgery, and their was nothing fraudullent about it. The media are just playing it up to make it sound worse than it is.

    4. Do I think CIDA and the Minister initially agreed to funding for Kairos?
    Yes. But I think the PMO shot it down, thereby resulting in the pen and ink amendment.

    5. Does the PMO have the right to change the decision of a Minister?
    Yes. But they should have been up front about it in the first place.

    6. Do I agree with taking away funding for KAIROS?
    Of course, it’s a left-wing anti-semitic group hiding behind the cross. If they want to support Hamas or other extremists, do it the same way everyone else with that agenda does it……….talk to Saudi Arabia, or hold a fund raiser at a Canadian University during “israeli anti-apartheid” week.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Strange definition of "left wing" you got there bub. From the organization's wiki:

      The KAIROS national Board is made up of representatives from its member churches and religious organizations:

      * Anglican Church of Canada
      * Christian Reformed Church in North America
      * Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
      * Presbyterian Church in Canada
      * United Church of Canada
      * Religious Society of Friends
      * Development and Peace
      * Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
      * Canadian Religious Conference
      * Mennonite Central Committee of Canada
      * Primate's World Relief and Development Fund

      Anglicans, Catholic Bishops, Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites…MENNONITES!!

      Why that's a veritable hornet's nest of Marxism!

      • Holly Stick

        Yeah, way to smear Canadian Christians, James Halifax. Why do you hate Christians?

    • Jenn_

      I thumbed you up for at least understanding the issues. Can you tell me what gives you the impression (like, a link or something evidence-based) for your assertion that KAIROS is a left-wing anti-semitic group? I mean more than an opinion from someone else.

      • John D

        They supported some Palestinian relief work I believe, which apparently makes them anti-Semitic.

      • JamesHalifax

        Jenn, Kairos has been involved in many attempts to boycott Israel, though they deny it now. They have a record of supporting left-wing causes, including sending money to folks who want to protest the Oil-Sands. They are very political, which is fine.

        I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want to……but they should pay for it themselves.

        • Jenn_

          No, I understand you believe this, what I'm trying to get at is what evidence you have to support such a belief? I don't want to hear "it is well known" or be shown a link to someone else asserting the claim.

          The reason I ask because as far as I can tell this claim came about because either someone (I presume related in some manner with KAIROS) gave a speech somewhere, and in the audience was a member of some anti-semitic organization. Now, if everyone giving a speech must vet the audience they give the speech to, that would be one thing. But of course, it would also be an absolutely ridiculous thing. The other possibility is that giving humanitarian aid to anything Palestinian related automatically makes one an anti-semite. Which sort of takes the 'humanitarian' out of 'humanitarian aid' unless we are to believe that Jews are against humanity. Which I don't.

          I'm asking you in all sincerity if you've got anything else.

          • Mike T.

            "Believe" should be in quotes, when referring to what JH asserts.

          • Jan

            I think it falls into the 'if Ezra says it's true, it's true' category.

          • Holly Stick

            There is a Kairos Palestine group which I think is not connected to the Canadian Kairos. I don't know about their political opinions, but since they are Palestinian, stupid rightwingers probably assume they are anti-semitic:
            http://www.kairospalestine.ps/?q=node/2

            Since the word "kairos" is an ancient Greek word used by various groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos_(disambiguati…

          • JamesHalifax
          • JamesHalifax

            If you want to see the best example of what KAIROS is all about, simply go to their own website. It's a cornucopia of Left-Wing causes. You won't see the anti-semitc items as much, as the webpage has been wiped clean of anything anti-semitic, but what they failed to do was wipe clean the websites of their "partners" which are still listed on their website.

            It is not a surprise really, as today, it is those who identify policitally with the LEFT who espouse hatred and bigotry for jews, and Israel. Wrapping hatred in a cross….doesn't hide the reality of what they are saying.

            You may note, if you see KAIROS' financial reports….most of their funding is for paying KAIROS workers and furthering their political agenda. A mere 3.7% of their funding is actually used to help people. The money ODA saved us, was actually to be used for political purposes and salaries.

          • Holly Stick

            Lies and bigotry JH. Shame on you.

          • JamesHalifax

            Just go look at the Kairos webpage holly……and check out their "global partners"

            But then again…..you would probably fit right in with that group.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops = Left Wing?
            Freaking CALVINISTS = Left Wing??

            Man, you really do have a curious understanding of the political spectrum.

      • wilson

        Jenn, here are a few links to journalists giving details on KAIROS,
        it is a Bloggingtorie site, but it does answer your question.
        http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/good-news-…

        • Holly Stick

          I would not trust NGO Monitor as an information source:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor#Receptio…

        • Jenn_

          Thank you for an honest answer to an honest question.

          I actually am pretty much onside with Brian Lilley's views myself with regard to religious funding. I've come to believe that you can't always combat human rights abuses without getting political–although here I'm very willing to debate how that's best achieved and what limits should be imposed etc. However, he's not making the claim that Kairos is anti-semitic. NGO Monitor sees absolutely everything through a filter of "support the current Israeli government in all things/anti-semitic", so they have no credibility with me. The Toronto Sun throws out an assertion and then spends the rest of the editorial talking about how much 7 million dollars is–not substantiating their assertion in any way.

          Which leaves us with Rosi DiManno. It is unfortunate that Rosi mentions this economic advocacy strategy paper twice but doesn't provide a link either time, but I suspect that is because she is equating the boycott and divestment from companies involved with human rights abuses to a boycott and divestment from Israeli companies. Surely, we aren't saying that all Israeli companies are "weapons manufacturers, military suppliers, banks and other corporations that abet violence.”? Surely, you and JamesHalifax aren't saying that not funding weapons manufacturers makes you anti-semitic?

          Like I say, I'm not a particular supporter of KAIROS. But to accuse anyone of being anti-semitic, it seems to me, as a reason to deny funding–even if that reason is only given to your base and not the wider Canadian population–requires a level of proof I've yet to see. I hope you guys are asking for same.

          • JamesHalifax

            Jenn,

            Prior to the rigamorole, the KAIROS website was quite clearly anti-Israel. Now they are relying on their "global Partners" to publicly state what they no longer can. All safely under the guise of non-partisanship.

            The type of folks who work for KAIROS, would be more at home on the rabble website, than this one.

          • Holly Stick

            Prove it.

          • JamesHalifax

            I did.

            Go read the site, or failing that….try Google.

            Do your own research.

    • John D

      "It is not a forgery, and their was nothing fraudullent about it."

      I disagree. if you sign a paper that says "JamesHalifax recommends John D gives the troops hugs" and I scribble in a "NOT" after the 'recommends,' and I don't get you to initial it then that is a forgery. I am making it look like you signed a document that is the opposite of what you signed.

      • JamesHalifax

        ACtually, John D….

        If I worked for a company that provided loans or grants to individuals, and approved such a loan or grant…..and was then told NOT to fund it by my boss, then I wouldn't fund it.

        It would also be perfectly acceptable for my boss to say the company disapproved of the loan or grant. I would just be a cog in the machine……..

        • John D

          Yeah, but would you expect your boss to alter the document, or not sign it? I think it's important to look at what the document said exactly. She did not change a line that said "I, Bev Oda approve…" It said that the first two signatories recommended funding. Altering the document didn't just change the funding decision, it changed the recommendation made by the first two signatories.

          • JamesHalifax

            John D, if my boss wanted to alter the document, that's his perogative. HE"S THE BOSS. What my opionion on the matter was…..is to no effect when your superior states otherwise.

            The ODA issue…..I think is already known. CIDA recommended funding, and ODA agreed. I suspect the PMO told her that no money was going to be spent on a bunch of Left-Wing anti-semites, and ODA called her folks and said that NO funding would be coming. A beaurocrat made the change using a pen and ink amendment. It's not fraud, or forgery. It is simply a minister being over-ruled by the boss….and she tried to make a correction after the fact.

            Messy and amateurish..sure.
            Illegal or dishonest. No.

          • TimesArrow

            "John D, if my boss wanted to alter the document, that's his perogative. HE"S THE BOSS. What my opionion on the matter was…..is to no effect when your superior states otherwise."

            That's absolutely wrong in so many ways. Process matters; rule of law matters and respect for and due diligence matters. Overriding the recommendations of others and then pretending they never were different does not meet those criteria. Your last phrase is completely asinine.

        • lenny

          "If I worked for a company that provided loans or grants to individuals, and approved such a loan or grant…..and was then told NOT to fund it by my boss, then I wouldn't fund it. "

          Except that's not what happened. They signed a document recommending funding. The minister altered a signed document to read that they did not recommend funding. Funding was, in fact, recommended. Altering the signed document to make the signators appear to be making the opposite recommendation is lying. It has nothing to do with Oda's right to make a final decision on funding.
          Why do you find this so hard to understand?
          It has nothing to do with Oda right to make the final decision or not
          Why is this so hard to understand.

          • JamesHalifax

            Lenny….you obviously have no experience working with documents, or beaurocrats.

            It doesn't matter if the doc initally recommended funding. When the boss over-rules you and says NO funding will be forthcoming….you change the document. In this case, it was a sloppy amateurish job.
            As for LYING…sorry dude. She's the Minister. What the bearocrats say…..has no bearing when she makes the final call. (after being told by the PMO i'm sure)

            As for being "hard to understand"…..I think you are the one who seems to have the difficulty. It's pretty clear cut if you take off the Harper-hating blinders.

            I'm sure if a Liberal did this…….you would see the sense of it immediatly. (Unless you're and NDP'er of course)

          • lenny

            No. Inserting the "not" did not create a document rejecting funding – it created a document rejecting recommendation of funding. But CIDA officials did recommend funding, and no amount of "nots" can change that.
            And again, nobody is suggesting Oda didn't have the authority to reject funding.

          • JamesHalifax

            lenny……When Bev Oda changed the recommendation from yes…to no(T).

            It became CIDA's decision. In effect, SHE IS CIDA in her capacity as the Minister.

            Live with it.
            As I said before……it was a sloppy move, and I think ODA agreed with CIDA and initially approved the funding. I think the PMO told her to change the decsion, and she had it done.

            As before….Oda is the boss of CIDA…and the PM is the boss of ODA.

            The boss always has the last word.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I think ODA agreed with CIDA and initially approved the funding. I think the PMO told her to change the decision, and she had it done

            So, you believe that the Minister, the PM, and basically the entire government are lying to us about what happened here, but that's no big deal?

    • gottabesaid

      Might seem like splitting hairs, but you can't accuse somebody of anti-semitism if they happen to take issue with Israel's handling of this or that issue. There's being critical of the Israeli government, and there's the belief that Israel should be obliterated and that Jews are somehow inherently bad. I believe you can be critical of Israel without being an anti-semite.

      • EeeOar

        Might seem like splitting hairs….

        It is only hair-splitting if you view things through a white/every other colour except white lens – with that lens YOU (and I) are definitely in the non-white zone.

      • Mike T.

        Ah, but you CAN. The fact the criticism would be groundless doesn't seem much to matter anymore.

      • JamesHalifax

        gottabesaid wrote:
        "Might seem like splitting hairs, but you can't accuse somebody of anti-semitism if they happen to take issue with Israel's handling of this or that issue"

        I agree, however, what we see today is a double standard being applied. Given that the UN has been hijacked by anti-semites and muslim fanatics…….it is easily understood why Israel is the target of so much hatred by these countries and groups……..the question is, where is the condemation when israel is targeted by Hamas or Hezbollah rockets or Palestinian terrorists?

        gottabesaid wrote:
        "and there's the belief that Israel should be obliterated and that Jews are somehow inherently bad"

        Sadly true. Today, that attitude is mainly found in the UN Security Council…….and the Toronto Star.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          That's some seriously crazy stuff yer spoutin' there bub.

    • madeyoulook

      James, I too am more than happy that we might one day stop spending oodles of cash just because we spent oodles before. My problem is the lack of honesty about how this all came about. Ms. Oda led everyone to believe she just rubber-stamped the advice to end funding, when that was, in fact, not the truth. So I still have a problem with this.

      • wilson

        If only she had a rubber stamp, NOT.
        There would have been no issue.

        • madeyoulook

          No. That is NOT my issue. And I deliberately put the "not" in there at the outset.

          My beef with her is the testimony that she followed the advice she was given to stop funding this organization. Spin it however you like; this was untrue.

          • JamesHalifax

            One man's crazy….is another man's opinion.

            You're welcome to yours.

            (which is more than the admin's would have you believe)

          • JamesHalifax

            made you look wrote:
            "My beef with her is the testimony that she followed the advice she was given to stop funding this organization. Spin it however you like; this was untrue. "

            (first, don't know why that other post showed up in my reply to you…but anyhooooo)

            You will note that in my comments I am basically in agreement with you. My contention, however, is that once ODA made the decision FOR CIDA….it became CIDA's position. She's playing with words, and obviously hiding the fact that CIDA approved the funding initially. I also think ODA approed the funding after CIDA's recommendation, but changed it after being ordered to do so from the PMO's office.

            That too, is quite alright. Oda is the boss of CIDA…but the PM is the boss of ODA. The PMO had every right to over-rule a Minister.

            I just think they should have come out and said it…….the damage control and spin…..is the worse offence than denying the funding.

      • JamesHalifax

        Madeyoulook…..

        You will note that I believe funding was approved by both CIDA and Bev Oda. However, when the boss over-rules you…..you make the change he/she demands.

        Inserting the word NOT is fine, and perfectly legal as I think it was the only option at that point as ODa's signature was stamped on the doc already.

        AS stated above….it was sloppy, amateurish and unnecessarily confusing. I suspect that ODA didn't really know about KAIROS' agenda, but someone in the PMO did. She was ill informed and too trusting of the bearocrats at CIDA…and she got burned because of it.

        At the end of the day, a Minister has been embarrassed…..but more importantly, we taxpayers saved $7 Million plus bucks by not giving cash to an organization who's real work is in left-wing advocacy…not aid.

        The majority of funding for KAIROS went to salaries and politics….very little (less than 4%) of the money actually made it into the hands of the needy.

        • TimesArrow

          They are not handing out food or meds. Part of their work is[ presumeably] human rights advocacy, which is inherently political. Why don't you just come out and state you don't believe in funding people [always poor and powerless] who may have issues with how western companies are participating in their economies?
          As for anti- Israel bias? Well, let the govt make its case in an open and public manner. If the evidence is there the Canadian public will no doubt support defunding. However, that'll never happen cuz folks like you are not interested in evidence or arguing the merit of their case publically – you might lose. On the odd occasion when you do make an honest attempt to back up your wild generalizations and assertions that's exactly what happens.

        • madeyoulook

          That's a lot of words in reply, James, for which I thank you, but it avoids my actual complaint with Oda. The "embarrassed" minister offered testimony that was untruthful not consistent with the actual state of affairs when she let on that she was following the bureaucracy's advice to stop funding. And she deserves more punishment than mere "embarrassment" for that.

          • JamesHalifax

            see my reply above.

  • JamesHalifax

    Hey….it's not like Bev Oda or the Conservatives went out and stole millions of dollars from the taxpayers.

    I mean…really, what Kind of people would do that?

    • Emily

      Nobody actually. In fact Ottawa is reimbursing Mr Chretien.

      • JamesHalifax

        Yeah…I heard that Chretian was getting a partial repayment.

        Now if only we could have someone order the Liberals to pay us back the 40 Million they still have.

        • Emily

          Give it a rest James. Repeating a lie, is still a lie.

    • NoNameCS

      Emily nails it. I would expect that once the courts have completely debunked an argument people would stop using it, but that would probably overestimate the regard of certain quarters for the rule of law.

      • Jan

        Adscam is the Cons default argument for everything they do.

    • Holly Stick

      What kind of people? Conservatives wasting taxpayers' money sending tenpercenters all over the place (I wonder how many of them Ullyatt sent). Conservative Senators already fattening in the trough now wanting to waste taxpayers' money sending tenpercenters out. Conservative Senators who are paid by Canadians to work for Canada, instead runing around electioneering for the Conservatives.

      Bunch of thieves.

      • JamesHalifax

        Poor HOlly schtick…..

        Holly, everything you wrote about Conservative senators….applies to LIberal senators. Is there waste….sure, and I don't like it any more than you do.

        There is a difference between waste and theft though. Face it…the Liberal Party of Canada….was caught red-handed STEALING MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS.
        It was not a mistake
        It was not a clerical error
        It was a complex scheme to launder stolen money from Canadians and return it to the Liberal Party and their supporters.
        They were caught
        We watched it on TV
        The LIberals had to pay some money back.
        There is still 40 MILLION missing…..

        That is a FACT
        That is the TRUTH
        It is on the RECORD

        And Canadians remember it.
        That's why Harper is the PRime Minister.
        Get used to it.

    • Thwim

      I dunno. Ask Elections Canada.

  • SanDiegoDave

    I love my Home and Native Land. People in the middle east are overthrowing dictators and we're worried about some bone-headed Conservative (are there any other kind?) and her incompetent attempts to defend her boneheaded actions.

    We are truly blessed when our biggest problem is ham-fisted (and not too bright) ideologues running the government.

    • Jan

      We have a government acting like a 'Nigerian letter' writer – do you mind if some of us give a dam?

      • SanDiegoDave

        I don't mean to belittle the effort on the part of rational thinking people to try and get rid of this amateurish government, Jan. I am watching the video from Tripoli this morning and truly thinking that we are blessed. When the Conservatives (they don't deserve to be called Tories- that name belongs to a party of honourable men and women) are reduced to their Albertan rump of 60-70 seats, I am confident that even a man as vain as Stephen Harper will stand up in front of the cameras and say something along the lines of "The Canadian people have spoken…." and ride off into the sunset. No shots fired, no violence, just a peaceful transition.

        We are blessed.

        • Holly Stick

          Those liars are doiing a lot of harm to Canada with their stupid decisions to destroy the census, to put incompetent Conservative hacks into important public service positions, to cut funding for research on climate change, etc. It's not a minor thing; it's our future they are ruining.

          • SanDiegoDave

            Patience, Holly. We'll get rid of them soon enough.

          • madeyoulook

            Got an actual plan for that, Dave? 'Cuz the current state of public opinion measurement is stretching the time frame beyond any reasonable definition of "soon."

        • Jan

          While you're watching tv in San Diego some of us back here are keeping an eye on our own democracy.

          • SanDiegoDave

            Oh my- trying to group me in with Ignatieff eh Jan?

            PeterboroDave….he was just visiting….

          • Holly Stick

            So when are you going to come back for us?

          • SanDiegoDave

            I Shall Return.

            I kinda have to- my TN-status visa is only good for two years….Geez I guess that means I can never be Prime Minister.

          • madeyoulook

            Dave? "He won't be coming back for you," Holly.

    • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

      I mean…look at Burma! We're not that bad, eh?

  • peter

    The bureaucrats and families should be pleased. Hate to stir up old files but does the name Francois Beaudoin (sp FBDB pres.) ring any bells? If I recall correctly Mr Chretien resigned, reimbursed the government all his ill-gotten cash and issued a personal apology to M. Beaudoin. :) Perhaps i am mis-recalling…?

    Andrew Coyne posted a column in the NP titled "Why it Matters". Do all the Conservative bashers here assembled recall the incident? Is Ms. Oda as odiferous as the former PM? Less? More? Was this a policy decision, or was she gaining a personal benefit?

    Last time I checked we elected governments to make policy. Sure they take advice from their departments, but isn't the dog supposed to wag the tail and not vice versa? Just askin'.

    • FVerhoeven

      Peter, I would love to read that old article by Coyne (Why it matters) but can't find it. Would you have a link? Thx

      • peter

        Sorry, no link…however that specific column was a watershed moment in political my education…I have it in a box somewhere. It is not in NP archives, on the wayback machine and andrewcoyne.com seems to be gone. But hey the author is Wherry's boss, maybe he still has a copy and could post it as contrast to his recent stylings about l'affaire Oda. But a fair summary would be, "Chretien is robbing us blind for personal benefit and no one seems to care and the ones who do can all be fired by Chretien so are wisely remaining silent." Now that was definately a low point in our democracy (such as it is). No one breathing air who was around for that whole sordid episode can possibly say what Ms. Oda is alleged to have done is even reading from the same book of corruption displayed in that raspberry to the rule of law. Oh, and did I mention that the whole corruption scandal still took nearly four years to break from that point.? With two notable exceptions it is pretty much the same crew filling the Liberal benches. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I think it ran in the spring of 2001.

        • FVerhoeven

          Thanks Peter.

          Yes, I remember them days fondly. Yes, in them days, Coyne was one of my heroes by standing up for common sense, and doing so reasonably.

          Lately, Coyne hasn't been the same. He's become reactionary, like so many of them before him. Too bad.

          • TimesArrow

            Meaning, he expects the same standard of behaviour he did of the liberal govt. Why is that so hard for partisans like you to grasp?

          • JamesHalifax

            TimesArrow wrote:
            "Meaning, he expects the same standard of behaviour he did of the liberal govt. Why is that so hard for partisans like you to grasp?"

            I agree…Andrew is a purist. When he sees something amiss…he raises the alarm. I think he's particularly hard on the Conservatives…because he is slightly right of centre himself, and expected more of Harper. Andrew shouldn't worry though….when Harper gets a majority, the opposition will calm down and pout for the next four years and forego the phoney scandals calls etc..etc..

            Then the Government can govern……and stop the games.

          • TimesArrow

            I'll make a bet with you James, that when and if Harper gets a majority [ it's all in his hands really. Everytime he gets near majority territory he shoots himself in the foot - he's running out of feet though]
            he'll conitinue his radical remake of our political society under the table. Essentially because he isn't prepared to lose and because essentially he isn't a democrat. He simply believes he knows best what's good for us and that sooner or later enough of us will see things his way.

          • NorthernPoV

            a hero when he agrees with you

            and a reactionary when he doesn't

            you really have no shame!

          • FVerhoeven

            "In a way, that lets the feds off the hook: whatever the provinces decide amongst themselves, they will probably go along with. But what if the provinces can’t agree? What if Quebec, Alberta, and B.C. are onside, but Ontario is not? With a federal election looming, and Tory hopes fixed on Ontario, the national interest may once again take a backseat to the provincial."

            Another ending to another same, same. No matter what Coyne writes about these days or talks about on At Issue, he will either start or finish with trying to blame it on the Cons.

            ……….."it lets them off the hook……………..with a federal election looming and Tory hopes fixed on Ontario" ………

            He either sprays it in the air at the onset or leaves it as he's done.

    • Jan

      Just a reminder, peter – the voters booted he Liberals out. If the Cons insist on repeating their bad behavior do you think they won't meet the same fate?

      • peter

        Nice try, but I'm pretty sure that stealing from the public and firing those who point it out is a far cry from setting departmental policy your staff doesn't like…even if the faux comparisons drive newstand sales and subscriptions. I hate to get "quasi" biblical but cast out the beam from thine own eyes before criticising mote in mine. (with apologies to Jesus)

        • Jan

          You haven't heard about the 'loan' to a quaint inn in Cannon's riding this morning? That's what I'm referring to.Turns out the Cons have a special little fund just for this kind of thing. Very creative.

          • peter

            Does he have a personal financial interest in the Inn? Is he able to fire ANYONE with the gumption to investigate and/or alter official records at "arms length" institutions? If the answer is no to any of the forgoing, it's not the same.

          • Jan

            They've one upped the Liberals – they've eliminated the 'armslength' institution. And his personal interest is to re-elected. In the old days we called this a slush fund.

    • John.K
  • OldJasper

    Meaning only 40% of the people who both answered their land-line phone, and said they would answer the survey indicated support. I wouldn't waste an election on that tiny demographic…

  • Mike T.

    If by "this" you mean honesty in dealings, parliament, and most Canadians, I agree wholeheartedly.

  • acmeopinion

    [youtube Ahk22ygakHo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahk22ygakHo youtube]

    • Emily

      LOL yodelling….how appropriate for a Con!

      Thank you!

  • NorthernPoV

    @peter "Last time I checked we elected governments to make policy. Sure they take advice from their departments"

    last time I checked…. ministers told the truth when asked about how decisions were made.

    • peter

      you gotta check your history pal, do you long for the good old days of screechin' Annie?

  • TimesArrow

    "According to the background document, the memo was then returned to the “very officials” who had sent it to Oda for a decision. Because of that, says the government, the two bureaucrats whose names were on the memo “could not have been misled” because they knew that the word “not” had been inserted."

    If that's the case why the need for all the fuss and the Embassy mag article? My understanding is that KAIROS could get no or contradictory explanations for why they were turned down. This explanation is also bizarre, it implies there never was any difficulty a all as far as CIDA was concerned and all the fuss likely was all down to KAIROS. If that was the case why all the misrepresentation of CIDAs concurrence in Parliamentary statements? Manufactured consensus/consent? No need, it was always the minister's and the govt's perogative. This is just gets odder and odder.

    • TimesArrow

      Fool that i am. I should have read the linked Embassy article…all is revealed there really, motive, the lot. The govt may even may been right to say no; but the sneaky underhanded way they have tried to pass off responsibility for that decision is deplorable to say the very least

      .Anyone have any decent links to any further coverage of this mining vs local indigenous rights story?

  • Jan

    He's plastering the country with vote buying money this morning. We just borrowed a lot of money to fund his announcements today.

  • John D

    You can tell how deep they are in it by how often they reference the sponsorship scandal. Next Step: What about Sheila Copps and the GST?

    • tedbetts

      The DefendConservatives (DefCon) Chart:

      DefCon1 – If an issue arises, say it's a non story

      DefCon2 – If the issue won’t go away, then blame the media

      DefCon3 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame the Liberals

      DefCon4 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a bureaucrat or provincial premier

      DefCon5 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a staffer

      DefCon6 – If the issue still won’t go away, then start talking about Adscam, coalitions, broken GST promises and the NEP

      And you know this one is serious when they are trying out all of them all at the same time.

  • Selena

    CRAPSpin.exe v13.07

  • wilson

    CIDA President Margaret Biggs can answer that question, and perhaps then the Opps, their media and Andrew Coyne would actually believe the answer.

    • Holly Stick

      Since she is likely to fired by the Conservatives if she does not parrot them, she may have trouble answering accurately.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      As Hollly suggests, testimony given about one's boss in the presence of one's boss is dubious at best, is it not?

      Besides, Biggs claiming that this was "normal" and Biggs being able to point to a single other example of this being done this way, ever, are two different things.

  • THA

    The Conservatives dont know enough about the law, to initial any changes to a document

  • DisAgreeable

    Two points:

    First, for those who'd like to think this was all somehow a nefariously timed "gotcha" plot of one (assumed to be) lefty mag. Embassy (which is the sister paper to the Hill Times, which is also essentially a nonpartisan trade mag., like Variety, except directed at gov't types & political staffers & lobbyists, BTW: ones concerned with foreign affairs), note:
    - 'Embassy Mag' were just the ones who bothered to follow-up on the story by doing an FOI req. to try to puzzle out why the funding was denied, after no one could get a straight answer for months; but,
    - over a dozen papers, incl. the participating churches' newsletters, talked about it for months, and it was raised in QP several times: http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/who-we-are/cida-funding-c...
    - and then it TOOK months to get the FOI req. honoured, and then some more months for the politicians to get that weird doctored memo they unearthed to a Committee, then some time for the Speaker to rule on their req. to rule if the House was misled, which is how & why this has dragged on for 15 months, now.

    Second, as to who or what led Oda to NOT go along with CIDA's rec., notice this curiously worded quote from her own spokesperson in response to Embassy's q. on who doctored the memo:

    "Jessica Fletcher [seriously? as in "Murder, She...] wrote in an email. 'The fact is, the minister agreed not to fund the specific project.'"

    "Agreed"? Not "decided"? Agreed with whom? Because everyone in CIDA, the agency, was recommending precisely the opposite of what she "Agreed" to… i.e., she DIS-agreed with them in severing the Canadian govt's 35-year relationship with this faith-based development agency.

    Which brings up what she said to the House on Feb. 14th, that, "It was my decision to disagree with the recommendation based on discussions with advisers."

    So who were those advisers who caused her to do the 180 and agree to be disagreeable, then?

    Dollars to Timbits it was the PMO.

    • TimesArrow

      Context is always such a bore…that is if you've already got your mind made up or an agenda.

  • JamesHalifax

    Disagreeable postulated:
    "Dollars to Timbits it was the PMO. "

    Of course it was the PMO…….and the PM has the right to overrule a MInister. Nothing illegal there.

    Just sloppy.

    • tedbetts

      Not sloppy to say that it was a "CIDA decision".

      Not sloppy to say that "CIDA decided not to fund because KAIROS did not meet the funding criteria".

      Not sloppy to say "I have no idea who wrote down that "not"."

      A lie in Parliament. Followed by another lie in Parliament. Followed by a lie in Committee.

      Since when did criminal illegality become the minimum standard for governance?

      • Thwim

        January 23, 2006

  • Holly Stick

    Look where CIDA is sending its money: to filthy rich mining corporations. How scummy of Harper to cut funding that was used to help women in the Congo who had been raped, and indigenous people who were being mistreated by Canadian mining companies. Ugly Canadians.
    http://www.miningwatch.ca/en/cida-subsidizes-mini…

  • JamesHalifax

    TImesArrow wrote: (in reference to Harper’s politics)
    “he’ll conitinue his radical remake of our political society under the table.”

    Actually, Times….Paul Wells has been writing about that quite extensively. There’s nothing under the table about it.

  • JamesHalifax

    Thwin noted:
    “January 23, 2006″

    Actually, Thwin….that’s the very day the Liberals lost the opportunity to continue lining their pockets by pilfering from us.

    Now….if only Harper’s in there long enough to root out the Liberals still infesting the bearocracy.

Previous

Next

From Macleans