Memorandum: memo: an informal message, especially one sent between two or more employees of the same company, concerning company business: an interoffice memorandum:

Informal: As simple as a post-it note.

Oda lied to Parliament and she should resign. It is the only honourable thing left fopr her to do. If she does not resign then she should be fired. This is a test of Harper’s inetgrity and leadership.

Kairos is a respected organization. If the Conservatives don’t want to fund it then fine. They control the purse strings (and the $55 biilion deficit). But don’t slag a respected organization for the spending choices Harper makes. That’s dirty.

The Liberal Party is always in support of democracy until it loses grip of power. The Liberal Party believes that there is only a democracy in Canada when they are in power and imposing their leftwing values and policies. The Liberals believe that the only values in Canada should be Liberal ones. If you are Conservative , “you really don’t have a say in government”. The Liberal Party like all other dictatorships around the world, believe that their ideas are the only ones that matter.
CTV Jane Taber says this story has legs.I hope their legs are amplitated, and the TRUTH gets out there(somehow).

So until Minister Oda took charge of this Ministry,
there was no place on the CIDA memos for a Minister to reject the request for funding….

That says it all.

Civil servants spend decades writing these cheques,
but Ministers come and go.
And all those advocacy groups who have been cut off, after years and years of depending on (increased) government money, don’t like it.

KAIROS ask, that CIDA bureaucrats approved, was for a project requiring 78% govt money ($7 M of the $9 million)
KAIROS funding from church organizations has declined, and CIDA funding increased.
Something is very wrong with that picture.

Imo, it is the CIDA approval of such an ask that needs to be investigated.

And here is a link to article on KAIROS budget, over funding from govt, reduced funding from those church groups,
and why this organization should be cut off :

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/tag/kairos/

This has to be taken in hand and when the dust settles the real scandal will be the outrageous behaviour of the opposition and their media shills and hacks. This is so beyond the pale it’s just incomprehensible we could have this sort of thing happening in this so-called civil society.

It’s all about the Liberal’s desperate attempt to grab power even though they’re in no state to run a lemonade stand.

KAIROS has become a vehicle for environmental activists to use government money in their efforts to shut down the Alberta oil sands.

KAIROS and Ecojustice (exSierrs-Lizzy May) collaborated efforts in their anti-Big Oil projects.
I can guarantee you not a mother nor child was saved when this group used taxpayer money to fly over to Copenhagen and Cancun to protest Big Oil.

KAIROS has become a vehicle for environmental activists to use government money in their efforts to shut down the Alberta oil sands.

KAIROS and Ecojustice (exSierrs-Lizzy May) collaborated efforts in their anti-Big Oil projects.
I can guarantee you not a mother nor child was saved when this group used taxpayer money to fly over to Copenhagen and Cancun to protest Big Oil.

Stephen,
don’t miss this little gem from Greg Weston:

“Good for us potentially, because, I think, I’m hearing more and more from the senior public service saying ‘enough’. And if they turn against the Harper Government there is no more ferocious enemy because they have all the brown envelopes.” (to watch click here and go to the 18:45 mark)
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1803965332

link above should read,
cbc.ca(forward slash)video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1803965332

but goes to main page instead

In addition to Milewski, here’s the venerable Don Newman on the NOT.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/02/17/f-vp-newman.html
Mr. Newman writes:
“When first challenged in front of a parliamentary committee about the insertion, Oda said she didn’t know who had inserted the NOT, changing the recommendation.
She wasn’t unduly concerned, she said at the time, because she agreed the funding should be stopped.
Fast forward to this week. Under pressure Oda conceded that it was she who wrote in the word NOT. …”

Readers of that last sentence written by Newman — Oda conceded that it was she who wrote in the word NOT. — would assume Oda, with pen in hand, inserted the caret and the word “not” into the document.

That is clearly NOT the case, since Oda stated in a Point of Order the NOT was inserted at her direction.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4959259 http://tinyurl.com/4kfufy3
[Points of Order] Monday, February 14, 2011
“Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC)
…    At no time have I stated that the decision for funding was that of the department. I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction. …”

Now, I don’t wish to imply Don Newman purposefully tried to mislead his readers, but if the lack of clarity in his column misleads the reader into thinking Oda personally inserted the NOT, is it NOT within the realm of possibility Ms. Oda’s lack of clarity was also NOT intentionally misleading?

Neither Milewski nor Newman, it would appear, like to read official transcripts, eh?

Does the CBC do a balanced and fair job? In my opinion NO.

Are they too lazy or biased, perhaps. The negative soundbites being generated by the opposition and being given free publicity by our MSM is the default position.

Was the communication and handling of this done smoothly (NO!) Is it being taken out of context like 90% of the smears, Yes.

So, if Oda had pen in hand to insert NOT, why didn’t she use that pen to sign her name and insert the date. And why were date stamps used to imply when document was signed.

I posted this over at The Iceman’s blog, but I think my comment got stuck in purgatory, on account of the three links, I imagine.

I re-post it here because I find it peculiar that the opposition would be SO concerned about a group not getting funded.

Let’s not forget Liberal MP John McKay’s role in this entire Oda affair. John McKay is an evangelical Christian — not that there’s anything wrong with that! — who was tasked by Ignatieff to reach out to the evangelical and Christian vote that has slowly been straying to the Conservatives.
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/printpage/libers_evangelical_voters-10-12-2009 
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/100304ignatieff.html
http://www.examiner.com/canada-politics-in-canada/canadian-evangelical-voters-not-so-scary-after-all


Maybe the Liberals’ vociferous support for Kairos’ funding has something to do with political gain — or am I being too cynical?

Is it possible she inserted the NOT, in ink and refused to sign said document. And when out of the country one person signed in ink, and entered the date in ink and then someone used the electric pen to sign the other names and used a date stamp to blindside the Minister.
I bet that every funding request coming across any ministers desk will now be read and examined, and if they disagree will write that in ink. Perhaps the electric pen should be abolished on funding requests and other important documents.

You jest, I am sure. Kairos is not respected, it is a leftist org. Be interesting to see how much of that money goes to wages and how much into foreign bank accounts by the dictators of the countries they presume to support.

LOL! ” … they have all the brown envelopes.”

Only problem is, Mr. Weston, they’re all Librano brown envelopes. Hahahahahahahaha!

Canadians are getting wise to the Lib/Left/Media shenanigans, and we’re sick of them.

“I re-post it here because I find it peculiar that the opposition would be SO concerned about a group not getting funded.”

KAIROS is a Leftard sacred cow, Gabby. I suspect it’s the Lefts’ nod to the “freedom of religion” clause in the Charter. The thing is, the “religions” involved here are the left-wing groups of the Christian Churches. It’s a great way to say the gubment supports freedom of religion with all of the money going to left-lib causes in the Third World, which coincide with the gubment’s politics, under cover of “the Church.”

No, I’m not replying to myself … … but I do re-read my comments with the hope I don’t spot typos I may have missed in revision.

I said three links, didn’t I, forgetting I’d removed this one:
http://www.examiner.com/canada-politics-in-canada/canadian-evangelical-voters-not-so-scary-after-all

Ah, well, I’m not perfect after all. Sigh!

No, Batb, I’m not convinced about the Liberals’ newfound religious fervour.

I think it boils down to number of votes, that’s all.

Kairos is a group of 11 eleven churches. It has done good work for 35 years. I don’t get why Tories are slagging a faith-based organization; other than it suits the Tories at this point tin time to distract from Oda’s big lie.

Examples please of the good work they have done.

Sandy at ‘Crux of the Matter’ has clearly layed out department plolicy and procedure which shows that Minister Oda was doing her job. If the opposition keep on with their attacks they are showing they do not have any idea of department procedure and therefore should not be voted into government.

Yes,yes,yes, PLEASE! Demand it, Mthielen!

To say nothing of the common sense aspect! Are these opp Mp’s and stupid journalists so idiotic that they think the day in the life of a Minister is the same boring drab nothingness that they experience?

Good grief! These people need to get a life. I’m a voter and an engaged Canadian that has done more b!oody research than CTV and CBC combined! What a waste of tax payer and advertising $$’s!
Canadians haven’t a clue what they are watching and reading with these dolts!

This is what “accountability” looks like, folks. It’s hard, but it comes with the job.

Oda misrepresented what the CIDA had recommended re Kairos.
Oda crudely altered the CIDA document to back up the misrepresentation. It wasn’t a post-it note, kids… it was a signed and dated official document., which was then altered.
Then the lies, in the House and elsewhere.

Like almost all political malfeasance, the biggest problem isn’t the initial slip, it’s the web of evasion and lies.

The real problem is NOTHING to do with Kairos, or CIDA.

It has EVERYTHING to do with how a government acknowledges an inappropriate action, comes clean about it, clears the air, and moves on.

They haven’t done that.

Was this a one-time case of bad judgment, or was this business as usual? If the former, then you should be urging your party to do the right thing. Most of the right wing press is.

Oda must go.

Stephen, if you think you can help soft-soap this issue away, and if, as the regulars say, the Liberals were masters of trickery, deceit and evasion… maybe you’d make a good Liberal.

Uhm yeah.. “good work = “raising awareness” = leftist agitation” . When we are living in a utopian paradise with no war or poverty, know that we are in debt of KAIROS.

You can’t be serious. Someone forgets to put a cover page on the TPS reports and it’s the Pentagon Papers? Get a grip! I shouldn’t complain though, the harder your line gets pushed the bigger the hurt gets on the opposition.

Let’s say this Bev Oda gotcha is the scandal not the Minister’s actions. Looking forward to public apologies from the opposition and media lynch mob, in fact, the Minister should take legal action.

The Prime Minister is also being blamed by these power crazy gotcha gamers, he needs to call a news conference and sort this out, silence allows them to carry on unabated and it gets ingrained in the peoples’ minds, in politics that’s not a good strategy.

The latest Nanos polling might give the opposition and their media shills something to take their minds off gotcha games , smearing and lynching Minister Oda. Their attempt to gain politically using theses tactics just don’t square with the voting public in this civil society.

“I don’t get why Tories are slagging a faith-based organization …”

Read my reply to your comment above.

I don’t know why the Liberal$ and the CBC are slagging the CPC’s legitimate decision to defund KAIROS, except that, as stated above, there’s an agenda here that KAIROS has enjoyed pushing, using taxpayer dollars, for far too long. KAIROS needs to put their own money where their mouth is, rather than raiding the taxpayers’ coffers. KAIROS might also appeal to the gazillionaire Sheiks about funding programs for their own people.

Part of the slagging of the CPC is the slanted coverage of this issue. In the CBC clip above, we can’t hear a word that Margaret Biggs, President of CIDA, says, and the voice-over implies that she and her department disagree with Bev Oda’s decision and the way it was made.

If you watch the video link that Stephen has provided, and read the transcript above (highlighted in green), this is what Biggs actually said:

… it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice.

This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.

I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative. [my emphasis]

What we’re seeing here is more faux scandals being manufactured by the disloyal Opposition and their buds in the CBC, in order to support the left-leaning agenda of KAIROS. I know it must be difficult to see years of careful nurturing of the Leftist agenda in quasi-government agencies, aided and abetted by cronies in the media, and funded by Canadians’ hard-earned tax dollars, bite the dust. However, unlike the Liberal$, the CPC are aware of the difficult realities most Canadian families are facing and recognize that funding questionable Palestinian initiatives using taxpayer dollars is not on.

Are you asking anti-conservative posters to agree with defunding political organizations that attack the Conservative led Federal government priorities for direct aid to help the most vulnerable with safe water, food security?

The opposition like to have their parties and meetings. Action is rarely taken. If the left did ACT and it failed than they could not repeatedly ask for money again.

The key is too appear to provide/recommed solutions, Provide high level consultations. The left have failed in lifting the most vulnerable. They have had generations. They made cuts in those programs during the last recession.

I am proud this government has not attacked or used the poor as props. It is time for more accountability.

Are you asking anti-conservative posters to agree with defunding political organizations that attack the Conservative led Federal government priorities for direct aid to help the most vulnerable with safe water, food security?

The opposition like to have their parties and meetings. Action is rarely taken. If the left did ACT and it failed than they could not repeatedly ask for money again.

The key is too appear to provide/recommed solutions, Provide high level consultations. The left have failed in lifting the most vulnerable. They have had generations. They made cuts in those programs during the last recession.

I am proud this government has not attacked or used the poor as props. It is time for more accountability.

Wouldn’t the Harper government have looked even better if they had done the right thing as soon it was clear that Oda’d lied?

It’s not about the document itself, or Kairos, or CIDA.

It’s not Liberal$, or the biased MSM, or “gotcha” tactics.

It’s the misrepresentation in the House about CIDA’s recommendation, followed by the document alteration, followed by more lies and evasion, and the expectation that the government can get bluff and delay and bs their way through this, without acting responsibly.

Maxime Bernier did his time in the backbench for accidentally leaving some documents at his GF’s house. Oda’s lied to the House. What do you think should happen?

Also note that Bernier is back in the saddle. Purgatory isn’t forever.

Re your assertion that “KAIROS is a respected organization”:

Kairos is supported by a grab bag of terminally declining religious denominations searching desperately for current relevance by adopting the commandments of the Church of Greenpeace. It speaks for the weasel concepts of social justice and sustainable development.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/17/peter-foster-cut-was-bungled-but-still-justified/

Read the rest of the article and you’ll see that there’s lots of room to rebut your assertion and to defend the CPC’s and Bev Oda’s actions on this file.

You saying she lied? Are you convinced of that? Would you risk litigation making that accusation?

I like your clarification Stephen. My whole concern with this is that for 25 years Kairos has been funded by CIDA – aka Fed.Gov’t. – set up by Maurice Strong in la belle province. I would hope that someone, somewhere, sometime in Gov’t. is examining these long term payouts – don’t they know of sunset rules?

I like your clarification Stephen. My whole concern with this is that for 25 years Kairos has been funded by CIDA – aka Fed.Gov’t. – set up by Maurice Strong in la belle province. I would hope that someone, somewhere, sometime in Gov’t. is examining these long term payouts – don’t they know of sunset rules?

I like your clarification Stephen. My whole concern with this is that for 25 years Kairos has been funded by CIDA – aka Fed.Gov’t. – set up by Maurice Strong in la belle province. I would hope that someone, somewhere, sometime in Gov’t. is examining these long term payouts – don’t they know of sunset rules?

If Minister Oda had corrected the record reasonably soon after misrepresenting CIDA’s recommendation, it could be explained and excused as an error.

But then, the document was altered and she used it as “proof”, then she claimed she didn’t know who altered it, then finally she copped to it.

One doesn’t normally expend so much effort to hide a simple mistake.

With most of the media calling for her ouster for lying, including the SUNs and the NP… yeah I feel pretty comfortable saying that Oda’s lied to Parliament and to a Commons committee.

There really is very little gray area here, this time around. Why does Harper choose to damage himself and the Minister, by letting this thing fester? It’s not like they’re going to take her out and shoot her…

If Minister Oda had corrected the record reasonably soon after misrepresenting CIDA’s recommendation, it could be explained and excused as an error.

But then, the document was altered and she used it as “proof”, then she claimed she didn’t know who altered it, then finally she copped to it.

One doesn’t normally expend so much effort to hide a simple mistake.

With most of the media calling for her ouster for lying, including the SUNs and the NP… yeah I feel pretty comfortable saying that Oda’s lied to Parliament and to a Commons committee.

There really is very little gray area here, this time around. Why does Harper choose to damage himself and the Minister, by letting this thing fester? It’s not like they’re going to take her out and shoot her…

Bev Oda oversees CIDA, but Bev Oda is not CIDA. She has every right to overrule CIDA when making a funding decision. She has no right to alter their output and represent that as CIDA’s view.

The bigger picture is – we all know Harper chooses the way. It is his prerogative. But there’s no excuse for altering the work of government departments to support his choice. Since we’re paying for it all, it’s our right to know when the government goes against the recommendations of a department, and the PM should be confident enough to justify his choice.

There’s several ways to indicate disagreement on any document without a forged inline insert.
Here’s just a few:
Don’t sign it.
Scribble out the ministerial signature box.
Write in the top/margin/bottom/header/footer – “Not going to fund”
Double-stroke every page

Paul Simon should maybe do a song about this.

Bev Oda oversees CIDA, but Bev Oda is not CIDA. She has every right to overrule CIDA when making a funding decision. She has no right to alter their output and represent that as CIDA’s view.

The bigger picture is – we all know Harper chooses the way. It is his prerogative. But there’s no excuse for altering the work of government departments to support his choice. Since we’re paying for it all, it’s our right to know when the government goes against the recommendations of a department, and the PM should be confident enough to justify his choice.

There’s several ways to indicate disagreement on any document without a forged inline insert.
Here’s just a few:
Don’t sign it.
Scribble out the ministerial signature box.
Write in the top/margin/bottom/header/footer – “Not going to fund”
Double-stroke every page

Paul Simon should maybe do a song about this.

I bet that every funding request coming across any ministers desk will now be read and examined, and if they disagree will write that in ink. Perhaps the electric pen should be abolished on funding requests and other important documents.

That would be a good thing.

I bet that every funding request coming across any ministers desk will now be read and examined, and if they disagree will write that in ink. Perhaps the electric pen should be abolished on funding requests and other important documents.

That would be a good thing.

“It’s the misrepresentation in the House about CIDA’s recommendation …”

Does Margaret Biggs, President of CIDA, believe what you’ve asserted?

It appears not. If she’s doesn’t find fault and points out that the “not” in the document is ” … [Oda's] decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice … [and] is quite normal, and [a decision of which] I certainly was aware,” why should the Liberal$ and their cronies in the CBC all of a sudden take exception to it?

That’s the point. Although KAIROS and its friends in the Leftosphere were seething about the withdrawal of funding, it appears that CIDA was not and that CIDA accepted the government’s decision, which, as Margaret Biggs has pointed out, is their prerogative.

This is the usual tempest in a teapot, Librano-style, whipped up to a seething froth in the HOC and the media, in order to slag the CPC which, despite their best shot, is doing extremely well in the latest Nanos Poll:

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have the support of 39.7 per cent of Canadians, while Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have dropped to 26.6 per cent, a 13-percentage-point gap, according to a new poll conducted for the Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research.

com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-attack-ads-pack-a-punch-that-leaves-liberals-reeling/article1914858/

I think you’re misrepresenting what Biggs said. Biggs acknowledges it’s the Minister’s prerogative to overrule CIDA’s recommendation.

That’s not the same as initially maintaining that it was CIDA’s recommendation to NOT fund Kairos.

I think you’re misrepresenting what Biggs said. Biggs acknowledges it’s the Minister’s prerogative to overrule CIDA’s recommendation.

That’s not the same as initially maintaining that it was CIDA’s recommendation to NOT fund Kairos.

The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women’s groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research. -Thursday, October 5, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/10/04/tory-funding.html

It appears CIDA was having difficulty with understanding the NEW direction. The internal memo annotation was consistent with preventing a waste of taxpayers funds for an organization that felt entitlements were a right.

The witch hunt by the usual suspect is not to be unexpected. They don’t have anything else to talk about. On all the major files the Liberals are in serious trouble including leadership.

Personal attacks and smearing female Conservatives with the support of the MSM works.

No, they’re not going “to take her and shoot her” they’re doing the next best thing, attacking her and stalking her, ruining her reputation, to say nothing of the mental anguish the poor woman is going through.
Sorry fella, this is way over the top by the standards of any civil society. It’s pure dirty gotcha politics which is all the LPC and their media hacks and shills have to go on.

Why don’t you do a song about it, kenn2? (Little Girl Blue?, Judy Garland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di-I3oVFlv0: “Now the young world has grown old, Gone are the tinsel and gold … It’s time you knew … Your hopes are getting slender …”)

Your POV: “Bev Oda oversees CIDA, but Bev Oda is not CIDA. She has every right to overrule CIDA when making a funding decision. She has no right to alter their output and represent that as CIDA’s view.”

Margaret Bigg’s, President of CIDA’s POV: ” … it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word ‘not’ is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal. I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative [my emphases].”

How can the President of CIDA put it more clearly, kenn2, so that you and your Liberal friends get the message? If CIDA’s not concerned about the “not,” because there was very little, if no, wiggle room for a Minister of the Crown to dissent from the bureaucrats’ rubber stamp, why should Count Iggula and Terry Milewski (aka Mi-peski) get their knickers in a knot over it?

We all know why. It makes for another faux scandal the Liberal$ can use as ammo against their arch foe, the very successful minority CPC government of Prime Minister Harper, which totally sticks in their craw because, dontcha know?, the Liberal$ are Canada’s National Ruling Party and Iggy is their crowned head?

The Liberal$ need to snap out of it. They and their vision of Canada are way past their sell-by date. They need a new vision, which they may have to work hard at– and which may take more than a sound bite and the media’s support to arrive at. But, if they’re to maintain a shred of dignity or integrity, they’ve got to stop crying “wolf!” or “earthquake!” when neither are anywhere near. They need to begin to take stock of and responsibility for their own sorry track record and make proactive decisions about how to move forward, instead of trying to drag the CPC down.

I’m not sure why the Liberal$ don’t understand that every time they slag the CPC, they also slag a considerable number of Canadians who voted for the CPC. It’s insulting, and there are a whole lot of us who deeply resent it. ‘Not a good way for the Liberal$ to win friends and influence people.

They also need to understand that their friends and allies in the media are not the best advertising for any good will they might have amongst the electorate. We’re on to the left-lib media’s schtick and we’re sick and tired of it. They, like the Liberal$, have been on the gravy train for far too long, a gravy train that we, the hard-working Canadian taxpayers, have funded. The coffers are drying up, our personal ones included, so we’re not too enamoured of any politician or media diva/divo trying to pick our pockets, thanks very much.

Capiche, kenn2?

Yeah, I guess I am asking anti-conservative posters to agree with defunding political organizations that attack the Conservative led Federal government priorities for direct aid to help the most vulnerable with safe water, food security?

I live in hope, Canadiansense! Maybe that’s hopelessly naive of me but there you have it.

“She has no right to alter [CIDA's] output and represent that as CIDA’s view.”

Just do this part. Curious to see what you make of that.

kenn2, if there’s any misrepresentation, it’s on your side.

Here again are Margaret Biggs’ own words, which you can read above (they’re highlighted in green for your convenience):

“The inclusion of the word ‘not’ is just a simple reflection of what [Oda's] decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.

What can be clearer than that? What’s your beef, kenn2, when it’s clear that Margaret
Biggs, CIDA’s president, doesn’t seem to have one?

I’m getting a rather nasty image of a dead horse being flogged here. (Now you’re being cruel to animals and not just c/conservatives?)

I keep seeing that bloodied horse …

“If Minister Oda had corrected the record reasonably soon after misrepresenting CIDA’s recommendation …”

EXCUSE ME?

CIDA’s president hasn’t accused the Honourable Beverly Oda of having lied or having misrepresented CIDA, so why do you insist on it? In fact, to repeat myself ad nauseum — because you seem to be deaf to reality, so I’m shouting this: MARGARET BIGGS SAYS THAT BEV ODA MADE HERSELF QUITE CLEAR.

If the president of CIDA asserts that Oda has made herself clear and that her manner of doing so was “quite normal,” what, I ask again, is your beef?

This is getting tiresome, kenn2.

After months of dealing with kenn2′s comments, which seem to originate in some kind of Mosquito-Coast, fevered Liberal Fantasy Land, I’m beginning to think that either he’s a figment of Stephen’s imagination or he’s plain and simple delusional.

CIDA’s president hasn’t accused the Honourable Beverly Oda of having lied or having misrepresented CIDA

The press, the opposition and the people of Canada are taking Bev Oda to task for pretending that she was only following CIDA directive when she canceled funding for Kairos… when she actually wasn’t.

This isn’t about what Biggs thought. It’s about what the House and a Commons committee were told by Oda.

I missed you too.

The President of CIDA, Margaret Biggs, hasn’t accused Bev Oda of “alter[ing CIDA's] output or [mis]representing … CIDA’s view” so why should you?

Oh, yeah: “The press” and “the opposition” (leave the people of Canada out of this; how would you know?) have a whole lot of credibility when it comes to treating the CPC, Canada’s duly elected government, with even a modicum of respect.

The only thing the press and the Opposition have been doing for the past five years is to take the CPC “to task” on everything.

Tell us about this House of Commons Committee, and tell us why it’s taken them so long to start caterwauling about this issue. Would there be any connection to talk of an election and the possibility of making the CPC vulnerable?

And, then, there’s that new Nanos poll. Tell us about that, too.

… because the people of Canada have a right to know what a government department (CIDA) has recommended, and whether or not that advice was followed by the minister. CIDA isn’t a secret agency.

If nothing else, you conservatives should be defending this principle yourselves, because if an agency’s advice isn’t valuable, why waste $$$ on the agency?

Do I really have to start posting links, like to Speaker of the House Milliken’s rebuke to Oda and her office?

You mean it’s OK that Oda and her office have lied to the House and to a Commons Committee?

Maxime Bernier did his time in the backbench for accidentally leaving some documents at his GF’s house. Oda’s lied to the House. What do you think should happen?

”Oda’s lied to the House”

Says you.
I don’t know who wrote in the NOT.
It was done by my orders.

WHO and WHY
2 different subjects
2 truthful answers

The lies are:
- asserting that defunding Kairos was recommended by CIDA
- altering the document to support the lie

but thanks for playing.

KAIROS is a reinvention dating back only to 2006.
Not sure what name was in prior 35 life, or the reason for the new name.
Anyone out there know?

Umm, no, Mthielen, I accept the explanations given:
• Ms. Oda did not agree to funding Kairos.
Be it for ideological reasons, Kairos’ activism and anti-Israeli stance, or the government’s more focused funding of developing nations on maternal health, the funding was refused, end of story. In my book, it’s the minister’s and the government’s prerogative to approve or refuse such requests.

• The deadline for approval or rejection of the funding was drawing near.
Notice the time lag between the two CIDA officials’ signatures (Sept 2009) and Ms. Oda’s (Nov. 2009)

• Given the looming deadline, as Ms. Oda was not physically in Ottawa, she tasked someone in her department to affix the “not” as well as her auto-signature at the bottom of the document. That explains why during the Foreign Affairs committee hearing she answered “I do not know” when asked who had inserted the “not.”

I hope that from now on all departments will have properly prepared documents, giving ministers an opportunity to give a clear indication of their decisions.
As Tim Naumetz wrote here http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/view/79
“… It [CIDA] would submit for the minister’s consideration only funding projects CIDA itself had already reviewed and decided to recommend for support, the source said. Ms. Oda had been insisting that the agency also provide her with funding requests CIDA had turned down. …”

So, IMO, there wasn’t necessarily a ‘conspiracy’ but simply a reluctance on the part of CIDA personnel to change the way they were accustomed to doing things.

IMO, the fact she wanted to know about ALL requests for funding shows openness and thoroughness on her part, since she was willing to give them all a hearing.

What I fault Ms. Oda on is on her not being a motor-mouth like some other politicians, so that she doesn’t come across as being able to articulate her message clearly, concisely, and forcefully. I can understand that because I’m no motor-mouth myself!

Sorry Gabby, but I was not replying to you, just hit the wrong reply re my comments.

“If nothing else, you conservatives should be defending this principle yourselves, because if an agency’s advice isn’t valuable, why waste $$$ on the agency?”

The bureaucracy is way too bloated and stacked with way too many Liberal appointees, so your question’s a good one: “why waste $$$ on the agency?”

FIRE. A. BUNCH. OF. THEM. AND. BY. ALL. MEANS. DON’T. LISTEN. TO. THEM. IF. THEY. WANT. TO. FUND. LEFT-WING. CAUSES. HALF-WAY. AROUND. THE. WORLD.

This is who you’re sh!tting on:

MEMBER CHURCHES

Anglican Church of Canada
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
The Presbyterian Church in Canada
United Church of Canada
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Canadian Religious Conference
Mennonite Central Committee of Canada
The Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund

Assuming there some open minds here, you are invited to read a bit more about Kairos

Kind of a pity all you conservative “Christians” throwing these Christians under the bus to defend Oda’s silly, obvious misstep.

Thanks for protecting us from those nefarious Mennonites and Quakers, btw.

You forget Liberals love to announce ideas, hold meeting, issue promises. They leave the heavy lifting to the Conservatives after decades of neglect.

From unsafe drinking water on our reserves, failed Maple Three reactors, used british subs that resulted in a death in a fire at sea.

Liberals are in it for themselves. They just like to take photos and pretend.

Interesting info when you google above org.
How long was that document sitting on Bev’s desk, without her signing it. Would you believe from July 2009, when she made the decision not to fund it. If it had been there since July, who did the dirty to her when she was out of the country. Doesn’t it go to the Minister after signing by other honchos, so why didn’t they sign till Sept .
KAIROS work is highly regarded in Canada and overseas. As the November 30th deadline approached, KAIROS member churches, its partners and other organizations had been writing Ms. Oda to request that she approve the KAIROS contract which has been sitting on her desk since July awaiting her signature.

One of those letters came from a Colombian group, the Organización Femenina Popular (the Popular Women’s Group), which has been awaiting CIDA funding through KAIROS.

She was not going to sign said contract, but somebody did it for her and entered NOT.

It’s an editorial, not an article.

Even so, the lead paragraph is:

Bev Oda, the Minister for International Co-Operation, has certainly made a mighty mess of explaining her role in the government’s 2009 decision to de-fund the activist church group Kairos.

And this is what the fuss is about. Not Kairos. Not defunding Kairos. But how Oda misrepresented who ordered the defunding, and to whom she lied.

hmmmm , , over the line ? or not ?—- http://www.vancourier.com/Tory+liar+epitomizes+political+dishonesty/4321704/story.html

…it seems that lying isn’t such a big deal anymore.

I was being ironic, Canadiansense! I totally agree with you. The Liberal$ are in it for themselves. They had a majority for 13 years, didn’t get much done, and now they’re piling on the minority CPC for not getting the things they think should have got done, done.

I have no idea what that photo is that says above it “Attached files.” I didn’t put it there and have no intention of opening it.

Does anyone else know what these files are or what they’re doing here?

it’s a youtube video. It was attached automatically since you pasted it in your comment. It’s safe.

They have made the changes in the forms that allow for the Minister to sign-off in opposition to the proposal. A change caused by the need to insert NOT in order to oppose the recommendations.

I know, I was having fun since Ken2 feels it is important to repeat propaganda on behalf of his party.

It is a shame apologists for the opposition and media can’t stick to the facts.

Bev directed her department over five years ago of this NEW direction for direct aid. Those in CIDA too friendly to advocacy NGO’s have been dragging their feet and created this mess.

She should have been tougher and fired those responsible for the signatures attached to that memo. They apparently don’t have any difficulty in ^NOT following the new orders from this elected government and the minister.

Excellent points, even if they are wrong.

Or maybe what some people call “lying” isn’t actually lying, themselves lying in their effort to persuade …
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-oda-ado-overblown/#more-173587

That will help, sure.

But anyone with a pen and a brain can mark a recommendation as not accepted, without having to improperly alter a signed document. And the form didn’t cause Ms Oda to lie about CIDA’s recommendation.

The fact that they’re right makes them excellenter more excellent.

The whole issue here, as far as I can tell, is the phrase “the CIDA decision”. Oda didn’t come right out and say that CIDA staff had no problem with Kairos’s application, but she did suggest that even some applications that might otherwise pass muster with the department are rejected. The Conservatives have offered the defence that a minister’s final word becomes a “CIDA decision” as soon as it is made, whatever advice she might have received from agency staff beforehand—and in a narrow technical sense that is certainly true, isn’t it? That’s how the public service works.- Colby Cosh Macleans article.

If a Minister makes a decision his/her department must accept it. The logical thing is for the staff to get in line or resign. They chose to forward recommendations that would not qualify or meet the new priorities for direct aid.

Feel free to keep shouting “liar liar pants of fire”, it is a reflection of how shallow what the liberals have become.

As a former liberal I am ashamed how far the party has fallen into disrepute. Too bad you can’t see the decline.

The whole issue here, as far as I can tell, is the phrase “the CIDA decision”. Oda didn’t come right out and say that CIDA staff had no problem with Kairos’s application, but she did suggest that even some applications that might otherwise pass muster with the department are rejected. The Conservatives have offered the defence that a minister’s final word becomes a “CIDA decision” as soon as it is made, whatever advice she might have received from agency staff beforehand—and in a narrow technical sense that is certainly true, isn’t it? That’s how the public service works.- Colby Cosh Macleans article.

If a Minister makes a decision his/her department must accept it. The logical thing is for the staff to get in line or resign. They chose to forward recommendations that would not qualify or meet the new priorities for direct aid.

Feel free to keep shouting “liar liar pants of fire”, it is a reflection of how shallow what the liberals have become.

As a former liberal I am ashamed how far the party has fallen into disrepute. Too bad you can’t see the decline.

Stephen: ” … since you pasted it in your comment.”

I did? ‘News to me!!!

” It’s safe. ”

Whew!

Posted over at SDA today:

The Star guilty of distorting the truth and here is proof positive

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/941328-talking-points-unfortunate-handling-of-kairos-case-not

In this article the Star took the liberty of writing a complete distortion of the truth and fact – in other words a lie when they wrote –

“The Issue: International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda admitted in Parliament on Monday that she scrawled the word ‘not’ into her department’s recommendation to fund church-backed charity KAIROS, reversing the decision of top officials. Having previously denied knowing who wrote it, Oda was caught in a lie. Opposition MPs and editorial boards both called for her to quit or be fired.”

This is a moment that The Star can not be proud of, that their paper stooped so low to twist distort facts and the truth to discredit or destroy an innocent person.

The Star writer wrote “Bev Oda admitted in Parliament on Monday that she scrawled the word “not” into her department’s recommendation”

Nothing could be further from the truth and there is nothing in Ms. Oda’s statement that could be construed to come to that conclusion. I have enclosed Oda’s statement in Parliament on the Monday Feb 15 from Hansard, uncut and unedited, and there is no admission on her part that she wrote the word “not” in the document.

Ms. Oda is owed an apology, as well as all the readers and all Canadians given that there was a concerted attack on her character at the time.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4959259
and go to Line approx. 1515 Points of Order

From Hansard Number 130 Monday Feb 14 2011
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): previous intervention

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding the funding application for KAIROS. I wish to clearly inform the House of the matter and clear up any misunderstandings that exist.

“The CIDA officials did forward a document in which they sought approval of the recommendation for funding of the KAIROS proposal, but ultimately the decision to not provide funding was mine, as Minister of International Cooperation.

“As you know, Mr. Speaker, departments do make recommendations to ministers and ministers, in carrying out their responsibilities, can agree with those recommendations or, as is the case with this issue, they can disagree. In this case, the process in place requires the department to make recommendations, not to make the decision.

“There was no decision taken by the department to provide funding. It was only a recommendation. It was my decision to disagree with the recommendation based on discussions with advisers. I was fully aware that my decision was not aligned with the recommendation of the department.

“In the matter before you, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked you to rule on whether I intentionally or knowingly misled the House by saying it was a department decision.

“At no time have I stated that the decision for funding was that of the department. I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The ‘not’ was inserted at my direction.

“Given the way the document was formatted, allowing only for concurrence, this was the only way to reflect my decision. If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

“I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.

“In conclusion, let me be clear. In the memo the department did make a recommendation to me, as the minister for funding. My decision, as the minister, did not concur with the recommendation of the department. My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding.

“I have consistently taken responsibility for that decision. I have consistently informed the House of the government’s aid and effectiveness agenda, stating that our government’s policy is to achieve impact, making a sustainable difference in the lives of those it is intended to help. In no way have I intentionally or knowingly misled the House or the committee.”

“Why don’t you do a song about it, kenn2? (Little Girl Blue?, Judy Garland: http://www.youtube…”

The comments software detected your Youtube link and embedded the video inline in your comments.

“Why don’t you do a song about it, kenn2? (Little Girl Blue?, Judy Garland: http://www.youtube…”

The comments software detected your Youtube link and embedded the video inline in your comments.

Quoting Ms Oda: “The ‘not’ was inserted at my direction.”

… so she might as well have done it, right. If Harper kicks a cat, or instructs one of his aides to kick the cat… the cause and effect are still essentially the same: Harper willed that a cat be kicked, and said cat was kicked.

So what was your point again? Any reason why it took Oda so long to offer ANY credible explanation?

The Conservatives have offered the defence that a minister’s final word becomes a “CIDA decision” as soon as it is made

That lame rationalization is utter BS. The Minister is of course free to overrule CIDA, but I disagree with Cosh that a minister can tell a government agency what it thinks. Else Harper could simply tell any government department what it thinks. Not that he hasn’t tried…

You are entitled to your personal opinion. It does not change the facts.

If you held a position in management you would understand about editing documents of your subordinates is normal.
CIDA staff for some reason feel entitled to keep forwarding recommendations that are not in line with the new priorities of this elected government.

Perhaps you prefer a country run by a Civil Service. CIDA reports to Bev and she is accountable for the decisions to fund or not fund.

She should have cleared this up five years ago when they cut funding to other advocacy groups and required all memos have a space for her to reject a recommendation.

The disconnect for too many apologists is they refuse to accept they lost the elections and decision making authority.

Have you party vote no-confidence it has been five years already. Win the election and than re-instate funding for ever lefty group you want.

“You mean it’s OK that Oda and her office have lied to the House and to a Commons Committee?”

No. That would be outrageous if it had happened…but it DID NOT.

The only liar I see here is you, frankly. I’ve been all over the blogs in the last week or so (Liberal and Conservative alike) and have issued the same challenge everywhere: show me the lie. Not what you think she “implied”, not what she “omitted”, not she “misled” or “allowed us to believe” something. You state categorically and unequivocally that Bev Oda flat-out “lied”, do you? Then prove it: POST THE LIE. Post the exact words Minister Bev Oda spoke that were untrue, and she KNEW were untrue.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Thanks for the opportunity. I’m fairly confident that among all the links available here and elsewhere, the truth can be ascertained fairly readily. I also know that unless I can produce 3 sources, pictures and video of Bev saying something like “I have three heads”, you won’t concede that she’s ever lied.

So, sure, maybe after dinner I’ll pull that together.

But nothing is for free. I’m asking you to answer the following;
- why would Oda have tried (directly or indirectly) to cast the Kairos defunding as CIDa’s recommendation
- why was the CIDA recommendation document improperly altered? (and none of this “wrong form” bs either. A minister and/or her staff should know how to properly make notes on a document without resorting to grade-school forgery)
- why did Oda’s ministry tell people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA
- why has Oda taken the better part of a year to come anywhere close to explaining what happened, and only after this being under the magnifying glass for so long?

This isn’t far from the long-form census BS, where the government tried to paint the decision as coming from StatsCan.

“Kind of a pity all you conservative “Christians” throwing these Christians under the bus to defend Oda’s silly, obvious misstep. ”

Lol! Thats impossible Kenny? After all, you’d be the first, as indeed you have above, to note that all of us Conservatives are religous right idealogues. A thinking person would have seen the dichotomy. Clearly if we are one we wouldn’t be able to do the other as it would kill our support. But then, its not the opposition that are the thinking people are they? But that said, its disappointing to see they can still depend on the Usefull idiots to perpetrate their dogma and idiocy.

you’d be the first, as indeed you have above, to note that all of us Conservatives are religous right idealogues.

It wasn’t my intent to imply that “all” of the right-wing commentators were Christian. If that’s what it reads like, I apologise for that.

But you know from previous posts that some of the harshly negative critics of Kairos upthread do profess to be practicing Christians.

“But you know from previous posts that some of the harshly negative critics of Kairos upthread do profess to be practicing Christians.”

In fact, a ton of Government documents are precisely like the one Oda signed although I think Ministries have the right to change them as needed/desired. Adding a “Not” to the approved line to signify rejection has been done for years as it needed a concious addition to “disapprove” of the recommendation. The ones I used for years were somewhat better as they had “recommended/not recommended” and one or the other had to be crossed out with the signature added. While there is a difference between “not recommended” and “not approved” One can, as Ms. Margaret Biggs (President of CIDA) has said, say that the documentation was less than perfect and should be corrected for accuracy but if the President of CIDA says she happy, then the Opposition can pound sand. Before they said that if public servants complained, the Conservatives were ignoring them and therefore wrong, now their saying that if the Public servants agree, the conservatives are still wrong and call for the resignations. There has to come a time when you just call BS and let them whine. But then there’s always the old joke about “When do you know a Liberal is lying?” Answer – “You can see his lips moving.”

Ahhh Kenny, you’re editorializing. Read the quote you supplied – It does not allude in any way what so ever that Oda lied – that was only you with your normal dogmatic hyperboyle. What it said was that she made a mess out of the explanation. There is a ton of difference.

if the President of CIDA says she happy, then the Opposition can pound sand.

It’s not the CIDA president’s call. As a taxpayer, it’s my call. CIDA is a part of government. If a minister goes against the recommendation of a government department, I have a right to know – first, as the payer of all those salaries, they must account to me; and second, to know that the elected minister is (or is not) making appropriate use of the tools at his/her disposal.

If a minister goes against the recommendation of a team of career professionals, and then tries to hide the fact by claiming that this WAS the recommendation, and improperly altering documents in a lame attempt to support this, that minister is not acting responsibly, and needs to go.

That’s a fairly conservative stance on my part, I’d say. Why won’t the right wing actually hold to their principles and let Harper know that this isn’t cricket? Expending this sort of effort to defend Oda at this point (nearly a year) only highlights how badly Harper has let the side down in his unending disdain for accountability.

My point was that even a rabidly partisan pro-Harper editorial has stated that Oda has made a mess of this.

More than enough reason to send her to the showers.

You have delusions of grandeur. I’m a taxpayer too. So are all the people who voted this government in. The whole idea of doing so is that the Minister can over rule the department (that they “rule over”) as that is precisely his/her job. How the hell can you say that a minister has no right to make a call or decision and then hold the government accountable???? That, is the most bizzare understanding of “acountability” I’ve ever heard of. The government is elected to carry out its wishes (platform) the job of the PS is to do precisely that. They can research, suggest, investigate and offer opinion but it is the Government, and the minister who makes the call. “But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.” Even the President of CIDA says Oda’s actions were entirely correct. So while you may think that you have the authority to override the duly elected Government in favour of the bureaucracy, that ain’t the case, and no less than the President of the bureaucracy in question says you’re wrong. Not that its a bad idea though. While they were destroying our Country for almost 3 decades, I would have loved to tell the Liberals that as a taxpayer, they had no right to make the bad/corrupt/wastefull/social engineering decsions they did.

.

I tend to agree with the editorial that Oda did not do a good job of her explanation. But English is not Oda’s first language. But lets have an even playing field – if we sent every Liberal politician “to the showers” who made a mess of explanations, Chretien would be in jail, Martin would have had his citizenship revoked, Volpe would be forever banned from Politics, most of the Liberal bagmen and back room dealers would be in exile, Hedy Fry would be in an insane asylum, Ujal Dosanjh would be selling pencils on a street corner, Bob Rae would be restricted to never leaving his idealogical home of China, McGinty would be forced to wear a gag in public and Bennet would be forever banned of singing the national anthem. Those American politicians who Chretien once blurted into an open mike “would be in Jail” would be being tended to by our own federal Liberals. But hell, if sending Oda to the showers would get us there, I’m all for it.

Actually, your point was to hype what was said in the Editorial into a suggestion Oda lied. And that is precisely what you did. And on what basis can you suggest that it is a “rabidly partisan Pro-harper editorial”? The fact that it wasn’t the “rabidly pro-Liberal CBC or G&M who published it?

LOL!

It’s a great song and Judy Garland’s amazing …

Hah. You will say ANYTHING. No principle is sacred to you, you’ll try ANYTHING to get your chosen ones off the hook for any transgressions.

Even the President of CIDA says Oda’s actions were entirely correct.

Pure BS. That’s a very liberal (sorry) reading of Biggs’ comments. Biggs said no such thing; she merely acknowledged that the Minister has the right to overrule CIDA’s recommendations.

And of course your other fabrications. I never, at any point said that the minister does not have the right to make any call Harper tells her to. I simply said that taxpayers have the right to know what CIDA’s recommendation was, and whether the minister followed that or not.

Phew. Did somebody just fart, or is Doug weaving another smokescreen?

Um, no. It was because it was a rabidly partisan pro-Harper editorial. You’re not the only ones who can spot bias.

If you held a position in real life you would know that you don’t misrepresent what advice has been given to you, and you don’t do a juvenile hack job on an official document to cover your ass.

If you held a position in real life you would know that you don’t misrepresent what advice has been given to you, and you don’t do a juvenile hack job on an official document to cover your ass.

Well, It took some time, but its’ nice to see you acknowledge that we too can spot that bias exists. At least now you’ll stop complaining when we point out that the CBC is “rabidly partisan pro-Liberal” bias.

“Pure BS. That’s a very liberal (sorry) reading of Biggs’ comments. Biggs said no such thing”

Uhhh, Kenny. Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. I took the quote directly from her testimony – try going to the top of the page. Now, see if you can follow the link. UmmmHmmm. Yeah, that’s right. Now, hit yourself on the head once more. Good, keep going.

“Pure BS. That’s a very liberal (sorry) reading of Biggs’ comments. Biggs said no such thing”

Uhhh, Kenny. Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. I took the quote directly from her testimony – try going to the top of the page. Now, see if you can follow the link. UmmmHmmm. Yeah, that’s right. Now, hit yourself on the head once more. Good, keep going.

“I simply said that taxpayers have the right to know what CIDA’s recommendation was, and whether the minister followed that or not.”

Uhhh, no, they don’t. Governmental comminications between a Minister and his/her staff are generally confidential – I can’t speak for requests for funding but if it works here, we should be able to mine for Liberal documents for years. Oh yeah, I forgot. That’s why Chuck Guite went to jail without Chretien – Liberals, due to their lack of ethics, never write anything down.

“I simply said that taxpayers have the right to know what CIDA’s recommendation was, and whether the minister followed that or not.”

Uhhh, no, they don’t. Governmental comminications between a Minister and his/her staff are generally confidential – I can’t speak for requests for funding but if it works here, we should be able to mine for Liberal documents for years. Oh yeah, I forgot. That’s why Chuck Guite went to jail without Chretien – Liberals, due to their lack of ethics, never write anything down.

Nawww. Kenny provides a foil as well as entertainment. Endlessly continuing to make ever more wild accusations so that we have an opportunity to smack him down. Kinda like those old Popeye punching bags. You hit ‘em, they went down to the floor and came right back up. Never said anything intelligent, they were there so you could make a point. Like Kenny, they were full of air, but they worked fine if you used them for the purpose they were designed to fill. If Kenny left the board, we wouldn’t have the endless, dogmatic, ranting to rebut. If Kenny didn’ show up to spout off his “accusation de jour” we’d have nothing to do but agree with each other. Kenny’s not just an ass, he’s an asset.

Nawww. Kenny provides a foil as well as entertainment. Endlessly continuing to make ever more wild accusations so that we have an opportunity to smack him down. Kinda like those old Popeye punching bags. You hit ‘em, they went down to the floor and came right back up. Never said anything intelligent, they were there so you could make a point. Like Kenny, they were full of air, but they worked fine if you used them for the purpose they were designed to fill. If Kenny left the board, we wouldn’t have the endless, dogmatic, ranting to rebut. If Kenny didn’ show up to spout off his “accusation de jour” we’d have nothing to do but agree with each other. Kenny’s not just an ass, he’s an asset.

Ahem … if I may intrude …

Kenn2 said: “I’m asking you to answer the following;”
- why would Oda have tried (directly or indirectly) to cast the Kairos defunding as CIDa’s recommendation
“Directly or indirectly”? Giving yourself quite a wide berth, aren’t you Kenn2? I suppose you’re going to be the judge of what is “directly or indirectly” — right?
I’m saying directly: this question is invalid.

- why was the CIDA recommendation document improperly altered? (and none of this “wrong form” bs either. A minister and/or her staff should know how to properly make notes on a document without resorting to grade-school forgery)
“forgery”? No, Kenn2, NOT a forgery.
Definition of forgery:
1. the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing of another person’s name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger’s  name.
2. the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like.
3. something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery.

Not one of those definitions can be applied to the document in question.
I admit, however, that the document could have been made to signify the minister’s rejection differently. But inserting the word “not” does not constitute “forgery.”

- why did Oda’s ministry tell people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA
You seem to pull these out of your hat. When, where did that take place? References, please.

- why has Oda taken the better part of a year to come anywhere close to explaining what happened, and only after this being under the magnifying glass for so long?

“the better part of a year”?
Tsk, tsk, Kenny! Such exaggeration!
The “not” document was unearthed by Embassy Magazine sometime in late October 2010 through a FOI request. I wonder at whose instigation? But that’s another story.

The Liberals and the NDP, their research done for them by the friendly media, raised the issue again and asked Minister Oda to appear before the Foreign Affairs committee
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4871931&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3
When?
December 9, 2010
“Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):
    Thank you.
    Minister, I want to focus on an article in Embassy magazine that deals with the KAIROS question, because there seems to be such a discrepancy between the documents that are filed on KAIROS with the Embassy magazine …”

So, “the better part of a year” is obviously a gross overstatement.

How could you talk about the concept of principles, you are an apologist for the Liberals?

You spend your entire time repeating their war room as if those points are credible.

Clearly you have not come to grips why Canadians gave your party the worst popular vote since confederation.

I suggest you look in the mirror and have your party discuss why they are the lost generation. The upcoming election whenever it will be called may send another message and make you wish Dion was still in charge.

A public rout is coming, just wait for it.

Gabby, kennytoo lives in his own little world. As Canadiansense has pointed out, he parrots the Librano War Room’s talking points ad nauseum.

(I keep wondering on whose payroll he is, as he has all the time in the world to rebut anyone who disagrees with the Lib POV. Or, maybe, he’s a retired Liberal backroom boy with nothing better to do with his time …)

I am confident Kenn2 actually donates to the party and does this for free. He is most likely a full convert into the cult of Liberalism. The training and indoctrination starts at an early age and by the time they are adults logic and commonsense are failed theories.

A press release from the LPC war room is all that matters. I am waiting for the Liberal kids in the war room to suggest we outlaw the law of gravity so Kenn2 can argue in favour of it.

I am confident Kenn2 actually donates to the party and does this for free. He is most likely a full convert into the cult of Liberalism. The training and indoctrination starts at an early age and by the time they are adults logic and commonsense are failed theories.

A press release from the LPC war room is all that matters. I am waiting for the Liberal kids in the war room to suggest we outlaw the law of gravity so Kenn2 can argue in favour of it.

The crackle of hairs splitting, and the swoosh of evasions.

Re Kenney:
December 16, 2009: Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told an Israeli audience the cuts to KAIROS were part of his government’s efforts to crack down on anti-Semitic groups. He said the organization lost its CIDA funding because it took a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. Aid groups expressed shock at the assertion, prompting Kenney to state that, in fact, Oda ended KAIROS’ funding because it didn’t meet CIDA priorities.

If you were unaware of Kenney’s statement, or the fact that the misrepresentation of CIDA’s reccommendation has been ongoing, then you’re perhaps not informed enough to be commenting…? or you’re a partisan.

I usually let you have your fun with the CBC. If you don’t watch/ listen to the CBC, particularly for current-events programming, it’s your loss and of no concern to me.

“[all] MSM is [liberal-]biased” is the right-wing dogma I object to.

I usually let you have your fun with the CBC. If you don’t watch/ listen to the CBC, particularly for current-events programming, it’s your loss and of no concern to me.

“[all] MSM is [liberal-]biased” is the right-wing dogma I object to.

Visiting here is a nice break for me. It’s like going to the zoo, except that when the monkeys here throw poo, I get to throw it back, but wrapped around some tough little facts.

Beats video games…

Doug gets it (mostly).

It’s tough and getting tougher to find online “Tories” who can eloquently defend CPC tactics, and have the honesty to acknowledge when the government has obviously mis-stepped. That’s OK, I like a challenge.

More smoke.

CIDA’s written report and recommendation is part of the public record. Only dictators operate in secret.

You really don’t grasp the accountability thing. or you just don’t care, cos it’s the CPC.

Kenn2, please look for my response to your comment below. I dislike this format of ever-smaller threaded conversations, so please indulge me.

My reply to Kenn2

It seems I’ve been overestimating you, Kenn2. And here I thought I was dealing with a fairly literate and worthy adversary!

Is that the only proof you can provide to prove your assertion in the form of a question?
- why did Oda’s ministry tell people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA
By citing Jason Kenny’s ONE allusion to Kairos he made in a speech delivered in Jerusalem in 2009?

I won’t bother pointing you to other blogs where it is clearly evident I was fully aware of Jason Kenney’s remark about Kairos before you provided that link, given the comments I wrote there.

Saying that in fact, Oda ended KAIROS’ funding because it didn’t meet CIDA priorities is NOT the same as saying Oda’s ministry [told] people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA —- which was your statement, made in the form of a question. That means you’re now in jeopardy of losing whatever credibility you may previously have enjoyed.

If you’re really interested in what Jason Kenney actually said about Kairos and CIDA, read his own words here:
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/12/jason-kenney-speech-at-ant-semitism.html
And his answer to some reactions to his speech here:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/742495

Oh, and another thing. That link you so proudly provided? Ha Ha! at the bottom of that piece one can read this: “Footnote: Written by: Liberal Party of Canada”
Hilarious! You call ME a partisan — a label, BTW, that I wear proudly — but you link me to something written by the Liberal party!?!

Quoting from Kenney’s letter you linked to:
Minister Bev Oda – not me – is responsible for the Canada International Development Agency. And she has been clear that a cost-sharing program with KAIROS was not approved because it did not meet CIDA’s current priorities, such as increased food aid.

[you] Saying that in fact, Oda ended KAIROS’ funding because it didn’t meet CIDA priorities is NOT the same as saying Oda’s ministry [told] people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA

… I disagree. CIDA’s priorities were such that they approved funding when they provided that recommendation. The weasel words “it didn’t meet CIDA priorities” clearly infer that CIDA themselves ruled against Kairos funding, which wasn’t the case, as you know. If Kenney was told by Oda’s ministry that funding was recommended by CIDA, then he’s one of the liars for saying the above..

Yes I know that any argument posted here can be countered around here just by saying ” well he/she/it/they is/are Liberal!” (or “MSM is biased!” if it happens to come from anywhere but Harper’s mouth)… but if you ever want any credibility attached to right-wing opinion, you kind of have to extend the same privilege yourselves. Forget the byline, address the points.

… tough little facts?

Which would they be?

Given that Librano$ indulge in magical thinking,
I guess kennytoo
thinks that unicorn-poo
is real!

LOL! ‘Joke’s on him …

Kenny, it really is touching to watch you try to turn copper into gold. Maybe I should henceforth refer to you as The Alchemist.

You said: Oda’s ministry [told] people like Kenney that the Kairos defunding was recommended by CIDA
That is NOT the same as Kenney saying a cost-sharing program with KAIROS was not approved because it did not meet CIDA’s current priorities, such as increased food aid.

Perhaps your difficulty lies in the fact you refuse to accept, like other government critics, the reality that the minister’s decision, once made, becomes a CIDA decision.

Take a look at the Organization Chart of Bev Oda’s Ministry.
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NIC-54101940-JTC
Oda’s ministry and CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) are practically one and the same. Once she talks CIDA has to listen, you know, something akin to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PwP1EjaBik

Or maybe your difficulty stems from the fact you apparently don’t know the difference between “infer” and “imply.”
INFER vs. IMPLY http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html
“The best way to remember the difference between these two words is to think in terms of the model used by communications theorists. Communication consists of a message, a sender, and a receiver. The sender can imply, but the receiver can only infer. The error that usually occurs is that the word infer is mistakenly used for imply.”

You said The weasel words “it didn’t meet CIDA priorities” clearly infer that CIDA themselves ruled against Kairos funding, which wasn’t the case …
So therein lies your problem, Kenny. You’ve mixed up the sender and the receiver. Consequently your message is AFU.

Ans so ends today’s vocabulary lesson.

Ooopsie daisy! that should be “And so …”

Plus, although in my draft I closed the italics thingie, they appeared throughout the rest of my comment.

It goes to prove that SNAFUs can happen to any mere mortal.

Thanks. So… assume I wrote “imply” and take it from there.

Most mortals who err fess up right away, and make an honest effort to clear up any consequent misunderstanding. Like you just did.

What’s wrong with Ms Oda then? Or with those who directed her response to the Kairos issue?

Most mortals who err fess up right away, and make an honest effort to clear up any consequent misunderstanding. Like you just did.

What’s wrong with Ms Oda then? Or with those who directed her response to the Kairos issue?

I think I’ll stick to quotation marks …
“What’s wrong with Ms Oda then?”
Nothing, IMO, except she’s not as glib a communicator as some of her counterparts in other parties. But that’s not a resignation or firing offence.

If by “those who directed her response to the Kairos issue” you mean the PMO may have asked her to turn down the funding proposal, I see nothing wrong with that. It’d be perfectly normal for the government to decide changes in the focus of agencies like CIDA. The government does not need to hold a referendum or a plebiscite every time it wishes to effect those changes.

If, on the other hand, you’re implying the PMO directed Ms. Oda to change the document from “approve” to “not approve” well, you already know what I think about that.
========
As for changing “The weasel words “it didn’t meet CIDA priorities” clearly infer that CIDA themselves ruled against Kairos funding, which wasn’t the case …”
to
“The weasel words “it didn’t meet CIDA priorities” clearly imply that CIDA themselves ruled against Kairos funding, which wasn’t the case …”

No, that still wouldn’t reflect reality. Remember that the document in question reads:
“RECOMMENDATION — That you sign below to indicate you ^ approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years for the above program.” The “not” was inserted where the caret is.

So, CIDA officials had NOT approved the program, they had recommended it be approved, but the minister had the final say.
Conversely, CIDA officials had not ruled against the funding.

So there was nothing to infer or to imply. Everything was crystal clear. The CIDA officials proposed and the minister disposed, end of story.

The real issue here is KAIROS not Bev Oda.

KAIROS, as I’ve said before, is a sacred cow of the Left’s. It is shrouded in a halo because it’s backed by and used by mainline Christian Churches to forward the leftist agendas of their activists. Most of the regular church goers know nothing at all about KAIROS and, if they did, they might have a problem with some of their initiatives in the Third World.

So, as I said, the issue is KAIROS being defunded, not Oda.

The real issue here is KAIROS not Bev Oda.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Kairos itself was never the big issue. Even Ms Oda herself isn’t really the issue, though she has the spotlight for the moment.

The issue is how this government operates – deliberately obfuscating and fiddling behind the scenes (in this case, for whatever reason, not wanting to admit overruling CIDA recommendations, and improperly altering a document to maintain this pretense), and making a mountain out of a molehill by refusing to speak plainly and honestly when all the above comes to light.

The CPC is it’s own worst enemy in this regard. You complain that the media is all over them, but this government keeps the heat on themselves by these inept little coverups.

Everything was crystal clear.

Uh, no. This would not be the issue it is if the government had not chosen deliberately to be unclear about the Kairos decision.

What utter, delusional, crap! Within a five party system, Harper sits within 11 seats of a Majority government. Consistantly, despite governing us through the largest recession since the 1920s, he holds a lead in approval ratings that places him within reach of a full Majority if we go to an election. Frankly, its tough and getting tougher to find anyone so delusional that they rationally suggest anything but another Tory Government is possible. The only reason you find PM Harper’s tactics so difficult to deal with is because you are so either ignorant or uneducated regarding Pierre (50 feet from Parliament hill an MP is a nobody) Trudeau or Jean (Vinnie the goon) Chretien who wouldn’t have known the truth if it, in rage at his consistant abuse of it, had stomped him into submission in broad daylight.
The fact is that nobody gets a perfect government i.e. one that does everything they think, not even the PM. There are things I disagree with the this government – our unyielding support of Israel when it is blatantly in contravention of the International court of Justice, the 4th Geneva Convention and a whole host of UN resolutions is undefendable. But with that said, Harper and the Conseratives have done a spectacular job during times which have brought a number of other national governments to the verge of bankruptcy. And Halleluja! For the first time in 50 years, we have a PM who is concentrating on his actual job – NATIONAL trade, NATIONAL defense, NATIONAL Soverignty and our NATIONAL position on the world stage rather then jumping headfirst into Provincial jurisdictions like Health care and education which piss off the provinces but better enable him to bribe votes from the obtuse with our own money. And there is no rational alternative – the BQ does not run candidates in any province/territory outside Quebec – no National government there. The NDP is a rump party who considers itself successful if it attains 20 seats in an election – in a 309 seat House of Parliament, small wonder Taliban Jack was so pissed at the disolution of the “Coalition of the Three Stooges”. In the real world the concept of him ever getting a Cabinet position resided only in the world of the greviously drug addicted. The Liberals? Hah! Only if you were so utterly ignorant of their previous record or so devoid of intellect or integrity that you probably have a dangerous offender label attached to your name, and the Greens? Sure, if you wish to see every social program from NFLD to Tofino killed dead on the altar of their “Johnny one note” platform. Darwin once posited that “any entity, flora or fawna, which cannot adapt to the requirements of its own survival, is doomed to extinction.” The truth is, that in any reasonable or rational analysis of the current political situation, the fact is that there is only one viable political party. Is it perfect? Nope. Can one vote for another? Absolutely! But rest assured that Darwin’s very relevant observations still apply. The Toronto mindset of being the center of the universe and thinking “right” is so mindbogglingly bred into the unthinking robots in the area, that they will continue to be like lemmings. Convinced of their dogma they will run eagerly right over the cliff, certain that if only everyone could be as smart as they, the world would all be right, but Darwinism often intercedes only on the way down. I have the wherewithal to retire pretty much anywhere. Do you?

What utter, delusional, crap! Within a five party system, Harper sits within 11 seats of a Majority government. Consistantly, despite governing us through the largest recession since the 1920s, he holds a lead in approval ratings that places him within reach of a full Majority if we go to an election. Frankly, its tough and getting tougher to find anyone so delusional that they rationally suggest anything but another Tory Government is possible. The only reason you find PM Harper’s tactics so difficult to deal with is because you are so either ignorant or uneducated regarding Pierre (50 feet from Parliament hill an MP is a nobody) Trudeau or Jean (Vinnie the goon) Chretien who wouldn’t have known the truth if it, in rage at his consistant abuse of it, had stomped him into submission in broad daylight.
The fact is that nobody gets a perfect government i.e. one that does everything they think, not even the PM. There are things I disagree with the this government – our unyielding support of Israel when it is blatantly in contravention of the International court of Justice, the 4th Geneva Convention and a whole host of UN resolutions is undefendable. But with that said, Harper and the Conseratives have done a spectacular job during times which have brought a number of other national governments to the verge of bankruptcy. And Halleluja! For the first time in 50 years, we have a PM who is concentrating on his actual job – NATIONAL trade, NATIONAL defense, NATIONAL Soverignty and our NATIONAL position on the world stage rather then jumping headfirst into Provincial jurisdictions like Health care and education which piss off the provinces but better enable him to bribe votes from the obtuse with our own money. And there is no rational alternative – the BQ does not run candidates in any province/territory outside Quebec – no National government there. The NDP is a rump party who considers itself successful if it attains 20 seats in an election – in a 309 seat House of Parliament, small wonder Taliban Jack was so pissed at the disolution of the “Coalition of the Three Stooges”. In the real world the concept of him ever getting a Cabinet position resided only in the world of the greviously drug addicted. The Liberals? Hah! Only if you were so utterly ignorant of their previous record or so devoid of intellect or integrity that you probably have a dangerous offender label attached to your name, and the Greens? Sure, if you wish to see every social program from NFLD to Tofino killed dead on the altar of their “Johnny one note” platform. Darwin once posited that “any entity, flora or fawna, which cannot adapt to the requirements of its own survival, is doomed to extinction.” The truth is, that in any reasonable or rational analysis of the current political situation, the fact is that there is only one viable political party. Is it perfect? Nope. Can one vote for another? Absolutely! But rest assured that Darwin’s very relevant observations still apply. The Toronto mindset of being the center of the universe and thinking “right” is so mindbogglingly bred into the unthinking robots in the area, that they will continue to be like lemmings. Convinced of their dogma they will run eagerly right over the cliff, certain that if only everyone could be as smart as they, the world would all be right, but Darwinism often intercedes only on the way down. I have the wherewithal to retire pretty much anywhere. Do you?

Clearly, you have never held a position in real life then. I lost count a long time ago of letters, reports, and various other missives that I prepared for others signatures. And I’m fairly conversant with “Offical” documents as I used to prepare them for the Crown and then (and still do) enforce them as Contractual obligations. And while it burden’s me to point it out, we do “hack jobs” as you call them, with a frequency that would boggle your mind.

Give up. Oda must go.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/15/national-post-editorial-board-bev-oda-should-resign-or-be-fired/

Assuming you have the intimate knowledge you claim regarding government, then you already know that the Achilles heel of Harper’s “benign” dictatorship (benign if you’re not progressive, anyway) is their tone-deaf disdain for the media and their unending penchant for secrecy, obscurity, evasion… a stay-on-message-or-you’re-toast regime that makes the Liberal regimes look like Ned Flanders by comparison.

Don’t waste your experience and intellect parrying with me, dust off your Rolodex and burn up the CPC phonelines til you reach someone who can convince Dear Leader that this blind arrogance is turning off even lifelong conservatives.

Given the Oda thing, and the return of the CPC’s own Adscam, and the Bloc making happy coalition noises, it isn’t quite election season any more, is it? I can hear the erasers in Ottawa busily scrubbing away at the upcoming budget from here.

CIDA has failed to fix their memos and tried to sneak a $ 7 million funding proposal for Kairos.

Blaming the document format is pathetic. Bringing it up repeatedly shows how thin the ice is under your position.

“tried to sneak”…? Look who’s lying now.

I am impressed with your fanaticism on trying to make yourself fee good about your delusion.

Clearly you have no experience in management. Clearly you can’t comprehend her mistake was to not remove the staff that was too slow in adopting the new direction of the government.

If it makes you sleep better to repeat Liberal war room talking points so be it.

It goes a long way in explaining why you are alone, your party can’t fundraise, hit 23% and in 2008 had popular support that matched their lowest record since confederation.

You should audition for Don Quixote, the role suits you to a T.

Kenn2,
that would explain why the Liberals did not allow a paper trail or any way for the auditor general or Gomery inquiry to find the missing money.

Thanks for the admission why your team refused to put so many decisions in the public record.

Give up, the Liberal caucus must go (Fry, Volpe etc). Besides, do you remember this comment? “Show me ONE story in the National Post that has been deliberately spun to make the government look bad.”

Clearly, by your own definition, this article must be a fake.

That’s some fancy lyin’, Doug.

First, that’s an editorial, not an article. I posted it merely to show that even a self-professed right-wing publication knows what the right course of action is on this issue. It’s only in self-deluding partisan pockets of the right-wing blogosphere that the remnants of the Oda battle is raging.

If the government does not give Ms Oda a dignified out, she is going to be pilloried in the next election. She’s being made to take the heat, and ultimately the fall, for an arrogant, unaccountable leadership. Can’t blame that on the Liberals.

You can stop quoting me out of context, too, if you ever expect the favour to be returned.

I have the wherewithal to retire pretty much anywhere. Do you?

We currently have the resources to retire comfortably just about anywhere we’d care to, thanks. So we’re alike there. I guess where we differ is that I think Canada should continue to be a place where retirement is possible for just about every working citizen, not just well-off, self-righteous blowhards.

(sorry, just killing time til your latest oeuvre gets past the committee)