CIDA and a KAIROS Scribbled NOT: They Oda know better

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2011-02-11 12:41

Caissa

A scathing ruling by the Commons Speaker Peter Milliken confirms that a key government document signed by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda and two of her most senior officials was deliberately "doctored."

Milliken called the document tampering "very troubling."

"Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked," Milliken wrote in his decision.

Milliken said technicalities prevented him from doing anything further about the incident.

Nonetheless, the Speaker's harshly worded ruling and Oda's connection to a doctored document is certain to trigger opposition calls for the minister's head.

Liberal MP John McKay called the incident "morally reprehensible," and told CBC News he will be asking the prime minister to take immediate action against Oda.

He said the affair shows Oda's management of her department has become "a gong show."

The original document in question was from Oda's department, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

It recommended the minister approve about $7 million in funding to a long-established faith-based foreign aid agency called KAIROS.

But sometime after the minister's two top officials had signed the document, someone inserted a hand-scrawled "NOT" into the recommendation.

Fri, 2011-02-11 13:03

Sean in Ottawa

It cost them money-- why is this not treated as a fraud?

Mon, 2011-02-14 17:10

bekayne

Bev Oda has just admitted that she was the one who ordered the document altered

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cida-memo-doctored-on-minis...

Mon, 2011-02-14 17:27

milo204

despicable for sure. How underhanded is that, to take a doc someone signed and insert something to change what it is their signature meant?

this wouldn't even survive a hearing on judge judy.

Mon, 2011-02-14 18:46

Boom Boom

Others have been fired, removed from cabinet, or demoted, for less. If she remains in cabinet, there should be protests in the streets (ha! - like that would happen).

Mon, 2011-02-14 19:29

Lens Solution

bekayne wrote:

Bev Oda has just admitted that she was the one who ordered the document altered

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cida-memo-doctored-on-minis...

Yes, I watched Question Period today and Bev Oda admitted it.

I agree with Boom Boom that there should be protests - peaceful ones of course, but it's unfortunate that Canadians are so passive at government corruption and don't take to the streets to demand change the way they do in other countries.

Mon, 2011-02-14 19:43

Unionist

No one really expects Bev Oda to act like an honest human being. She is a robotic slave of Steve Harper, and she does what she is told.

What shocks me in this affair is the CIDA functionaries. They obviously knew their document had been forged. They said nothing (as far as I know...). They are complicit in this forgery, no doubt because they love their salaries. Do they love their salaries that much?

I would like to see some enterprising journalist seeking answers from those whose signatures were hijacked.

Mon, 2011-02-14 21:08

Stockholm

Isn't Oda essentially admitting that she committed forgery or fraud? She shoudl be charged by the RCMP and get a criminal record!

Mon, 2011-02-14 22:05

Sean in Ottawa

Seems she did not realize it was a big deal and so it could be difficult to prove a guilty mind (a critical element in such a charge). Seems she is claiming to be dumb enough not to know that what she was doing was wrong.

And it also seems it is not illegal to be mind-numbingly stupid -- even for a minister of the crown.

No worries Canadains will reelect the government anyway. Seems we like stupid, crooked nasty governments.

Mon, 2011-02-14 22:12

#10

Evening Star

WTF? Ethically, this is as bad as the sponsorship scandal, right? It might not offend the public quite as much since public funds weren't stolen.

Mon, 2011-02-14 22:42

#11

Boom Boom

I get this really strong sense of entitlement and superiority from this Con MP, more than from any other in Harper's caucus. That limo business a few years ago really turned me off, and now this.

Tue, 2011-02-15 02:30

#12

JKR

Unionist wrote:
What shocks me in this affair is the CIDA functionaries. They obviously knew their document had been forged. They said nothing (as far as I know...). They are complicit in this forgery, no doubt because they love their salaries. Do they love their salaries that much?

Great point!

It would seem that Harper has the civil sevice so intimidated that they are unwilling to stick up for themselves. Did someone from CIDA have the intestinal fortitude to leak this info? If so, that person should be given an Order of Canada.

Harper and Company have been in power long enough for people to understand how basically unethical they are. In the first few years of their reign their behavior brought shame on them. After five years in office, their behavior is bringing shame on us.

The next election will be a test of Canadians. If the Conservatives manage to maintain power after the next election, Canadians will be at fault as we are now fully aware from first hand experience of the government's basic underhandedness.

Tue, 2011-02-15 02:37

#13

Lens Solution

Wasn't there a column written by Linda Diebel last month that described the culture of fear that now exists in the civil service?

Tue, 2011-02-15 05:22

#14

Unionist

Here are their names:

Margaret Biggs, President

Naresh Singh, A/Vice President, Canadian Partnership Branch

The third signatory is Oda herself.

So what do the two others have to say for themselves?

If anyone has seen a comment, or an attempt to interview them, please post here.

Tue, 2011-02-15 06:47

#15

Unionist

Today's print edition of the G&M carries, coincidentally, a letter by hapless CIDA president Biggs "explaining" why they killed a grant to the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and bragging about how "transparent" CIDA is.

This joker should be fired.

Tue, 2011-02-15 07:24

#16

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Here are their names:

Margaret Biggs, President

Naresh Singh, A/Vice President, Canadian Partnership Branch

The third signatory is Oda herself.

Biggs and Singh signed the document on Sept. 25, 2009. Oda signed it two months later on Nov. 27, 2009.

I wonder if the PMO had any part in this during the intervening two months?

Oda admits she had CIDA document altered

Tue, 2011-02-15 09:40

#17

Boom Boom

Bev Oda's admission fuels howls of secrecy against Harper government

"If it's not a resignation offence, I'm not sure what is," Mr. McKay said after the meeting.

Tue, 2011-02-15 11:00

#18

Catchfire

Previous babble thread on KAIROS defunding

Tue, 2011-02-15 11:22

#19

Boom Boom

CBC Poll: Are you satisfied with Bev Oda's apology?
Current results:
Yes, let's move on 5.14% (52 votes)
No, she should resign 93.68% (948 votes)
Undecided 1.19% (12 votes)
Total Votes: 1,012

Tue, 2011-02-15 11:35

#20

Boom Boom

KAIROS website

excerpt:

This issue reaches well beyond KAIROS; it touches on fundamental questions of democracy, transparency, and Canada's international commitments to all in the global community who struggle against poverty and for human rights.

We remain particular concerned for our Southern partners, who bear the brunt of the original decision to deny KAIROS a funded partnership with the Canadian government. With them and with faith communities and grassroots supporters coast to coast to coast we say: KAIROS is NOT going away.

Tue, 2011-02-15 12:29

#21

WFPD

Connect the dots...

The real scandal here is not what Bev Oda did, but why she did it. Her vague allusions to the reasons behind her decision are not satisfying. We should be hearing about what specific KAIROS policies the Conservative government objects to as well. The fact that KAIROS was identified as a critic of Israel leads to questions about what influence the Israel lobby in Canada has on the Harper government, and how this influence distorts Canada's foreign policy.

Foreign affairs minister Jason Kenney stated in Israel:

We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.

http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/12/24/jason-kenney-blames-bev-oda-for-kairos-funding-turndown/

Tue, 2011-02-15 12:54

#22

JKR

TIMELINE: Oda and the Kairos funding

Quote:

Dec. 16, 2009: Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney tells an Israeli audience the Kairos cuts 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.

According to Kenney, the cuts to Kairos were the "government's efforts to crack down on anti-Semitic groups." It would seem that Oda didn't act unilaterally.

Maybe Harper hasn't asked for Oda's resignation because the decision to deny funding was not made unilaterally by Oda but by the government and maybe even the PMO itself?

Tue, 2011-02-15 14:04

#23

Le T

Quote:
Seems she did not realize it was a big deal and so it could be difficult to prove a guilty mind (a critical element in such a charge). Seems she is claiming to be dumb enough not to know that what she was doing was wrong.

Wow. I wish this kind of jurisprudence was applied to the thousands of people that the government charges and threatens with fraud for not submitting documents or giving unknowingly inaccurate information to welfare, EI, disability, etc. I guess rich people in power are presumed to not have "guilty minds" while poor people are presumed to always be running some scam. Justice and democracy, eh?

ETA: The CBC "Timeline" seems to be linking this to the the Kenney comments on BDS. Let's hope that the MSM can actually report on this story and not get confused and just keep snapping photos of Oda as she gets crushed by Harper (he will throw her under the bus if he smells danger for sure)

Tue, 2011-02-15 17:34

#24

Lens Solution

Are there any lawyers here who can comment on this? From my understanding of the law, when a person signs a document, they are agreeing to everything that is printed above their signature at the time of the signing. But if someone comes along after it has been signed by the signatory and then alters the document, that invalidates it because the signatory has not authorized the changes. Isn't what Bev Oda did a breach of the law?

Tue, 2011-02-15 17:42

#25

Unionist

1. I'm no lawyer.

2. I can't believe for 2 seconds that what she did was "illegal", and I believe it's a waste of time and breath to discuss that.

3. If the other two signatories didn't like her amendment, they could could have opened their cowardly mouths sometime in the past 14 months or so. I'll take their silence as consent.

4. Bev Oda should have her sorry ass thrown out of Parliament for lying through her teeth.

5. Unfortunately, she is also a cowardly shit, so she will never admit that Harper forced her to make an [even bigger than usual] ass of herself.

There's my free legal opinion.

Tue, 2011-02-15 17:43

#26

Lens Solution

Question of the Day

Should International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda resign from cabinet over the KAIROS controversy?

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2011/02/question-of-the-day-29...

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:07

#27

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

1. I'm no lawyer.

2. I can't believe for 2 seconds that what she did was "illegal", and I believe it's a waste of time and breath to discuss that.

3. If the other two signatories didn't like her amendment, they could could have opened their cowardly mouths sometime in the past 14 months or so. I'll take their silence as consent.

4. Bev Oda should have her sorry ass thrown out of Parliament for lying through her teeth.

5. Unfortunately, she is also a cowardly shit, so she will never admit that Harper forced her to make an [even bigger than usual] ass of herself.

There's my free legal opinion.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The first time the altered document was made public, beyond the Minister's office, was in December of 2010 through the Common's committee hearing. At that time the two senior officials stated pretty categorically that the word 'not' was not there when they signed the document- thus calling into question Both Oda's and Abbotts statements in the House and elsewhere. They could have just played ball with the government and didn't - likely damaging their careers. Calling them cowardly is over-stating reality by a mile.

I am not sure there was anything illegal here, but there sure as heck was a whole steaming pile of unethical.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:08

#28

Life, the unive...

Boom Boom wrote:

Someone on P&P just said the gov't will just hunker down and try to ride this out until the next break, and hope the channel changes when they come back. Something big happening tomorrow with the Committee looking into this - may make a scathing report to the Speaker and who knows where it goes from there.

I am positive that is their strategy - something they learned from the master -Jean Chretien I am sure.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:09

#29

Boom Boom

Someone on P&P just said the gov't will just hunker down and try to ride this out until the next break, and hope the channel changes when they come back. Something big happening tomorrow with the Committee looking into this - may make a scathing report to the Speaker and who knows where it goes from there.

ETA: The Cons are in a minority, so they will lose if this comes to a vote to censure her in the House.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:12

#30

Lens Solution

Last time I looked at the CBC question of the day, 90% of people said she should resign.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:12

#31

Boom Boom

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I am positive that is their strategy - something they learned from the master -Jean Chretien I am sure.

I added this to the post of mine you quoted:

The Cons are in a minority, so they will lose if this comes to a vote to censure her in the House.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:19

#32

Snert

The only outstanding question is why the government of the day would refuse funding to a church-based group. This would make more sense if it was an atheist group dispensing condoms or something.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:23

#33

Life, the unive...

Snert wrote:

The only outstanding question is why the government of the day would refuse funding to a church-based group. This would make more sense if it was an atheist group dispensing condoms or something.

The churches are too mainline and not enough attempts to convert?

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:26

#34

Lens Solution

Even the National Post thinks Oda should resign or be fired!

'National Post editorial board: Bev Oda should resign … or be fired'

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/15/national-post-editorial-b...

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:36

#35

Life, the unive...

Boom Boom the trouble will be the vote will have to come before the break- which is Friday. They can probably ride it out until then. Once the House resumes sitting on the 28th other issues will supplant it. So even if there is a vote to censure the tie in by the media will likely be short. If I were the Cons I would let the opposition howl, get to the break and create something else - like announcing the date of the budget -to overshadow any other plays on this issue. Wish it were different as I have been a long time supporter of a group that joined with KAIROS going back a couple of decades, but I doubt it.

ETA

By the way you can support KAIROS in a number of ways, including buying this cheeky t-shirt

http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/resources/kairos-t-shirts/

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:37

#36

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The first time the altered document was made public, beyond the Minister's office, was in December of 2010 through the Common's committee hearing. At that time the two senior officials stated pretty categorically that the word 'not' was not there when they signed the document- thus calling into question Both Oda's and Abbotts statements in the House and elsewhere. They could have just played ball with the government and didn't - likely damaging their careers. Calling them cowardly is over-stating reality by a mile.

You're suggesting that Biggs and Singh didn't know - for a year - that the document they co-signed with Bev Oda had been altered? They don't keep a copy in their files? Or maybe they have a copy signed by Oda [b]without[/b] the word "not" on it? In which case, what were they thinking when KAIROS funding was denied??

Any way you look at it, they kept their mouths shut, tight, throughout this scandalous affair, until they were confronted - and then of course they had no choice but to say that when they signed, the word "not" was not there. What else could they say? That [b]they[/b] had recommended defunding KAIROS in 2009, and forgot to mention it when the shit hit the fan?

Biggs should be fired, along with her boss.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:40

#37

Sean in Ottawa

Some quotes from the criminal code that some might find interesting in the present context-- some by analogy and some by specific application:

Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

****
Forgery and Offences Resembling Forgery

Forgery
366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.

Making false document

(2) Making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.

When forgery complete

(3) Forgery is complete as soon as a document is made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1), notwithstanding that the person who makes it does not intend that any particular person should use or act on it as genuine or be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or refrain from doing anything.

Forgery complete though document incomplete

(4) Forgery is complete notwithstanding that the false document is incomplete or does not purport to be a document that is binding in law, if it is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted on as genuine.

Exception

(5) No person commits forgery by reason only that the person, in good faith, makes a false document at the request of a police force, the Canadian Forces or a department or agency of the federal government or of a provincial government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 366; 2009, c. 28, s. 7.

Punishment for forgery
367. Every one who commits forgery
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 367; 1994, c. 44, s. 24; 1997, c. 18, s. 24.

Use, trafficking or possession of forged document
368. (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged,
(a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine;
(b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine;
(c) transfers, sells or offers to sell it or makes it available, to any person, knowing that or being reckless as to whether an offence will be committed under paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) possesses it with intent to commit an offence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c).

Punishment

(1.1) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wherever forged

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, the place where a document was forged is not material.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 368; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 1997, c. 18, s. 25; 2009, c. 28, s. 8.

Forgery instruments
368.1 Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, who, without lawful authority or excuse, makes, repairs, buys, sells, exports from Canada, imports into Canada or possesses any instrument, device, apparatus, material or thing that they know has been used or know is adapted or intended for use by any person to commit forgery.

2009, c. 28, s. 9.

Public officers acting in the course of their duties or employment
368.2 No public officer, as defined in subsection 25.1(1), is guilty of an offence under any of sections 366 to 368.1 if the acts alleged to constitute the offence were committed by the public officer for the sole purpose of establishing or maintaining a covert identity for use in the course of the public officer's duties or employment.

2009, c. 28, s. 9.

Exchequer bill paper, public seals, etc.
369. Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, without lawful authority or excuse,
(a) makes, uses or possesses

(i) any exchequer bill paper, revenue paper or paper that is used to make bank-notes, or

(ii) any paper that is intended to resemble paper mentioned in subparagraph (i); or
(b) makes, reproduces or uses a public seal of Canada or of a province, or the seal of a public body or authority in Canada or of a court of law.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 369; 2009, c. 28, s. 9.

Counterfeit proclamation, etc.
370. Every one who knowingly
(a) prints any proclamation, order, regulation or appointment, or notice thereof, and causes it falsely to purport to have been printed by the Queen's Printer for Canada or the Queen's Printer for a province, or
(b) tenders in evidence a copy of any proclamation, order, regulation or appointment that falsely purports to have been printed by the Queen's Printer for Canada or the Queen's Printer for a province,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 328.

*****

Drawing document without authority, etc.
374. Every one who
(a) with intent to defraud and without lawful authority makes, executes, draws, signs, accepts or endorses a document in the name or on the account of another person by procuration or otherwise, or
(b) makes use of or utters a document knowing that it has been made, executed, signed, accepted or endorsed with intent to defraud and without lawful authority, in the name or on the account of another person, by procuration or otherwise,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 332.

Obtaining, etc., by instrument based on forged document
375. Every one who demands, receives or obtains anything, or causes or procures anything to be delivered or paid to any person under, on or by virtue of any instrument issued under the authority of law, knowing that it is based on a forged document, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 333.

*****
Books and documents
397. (1) Every one who, with intent to defraud,
(a) destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or
(b) omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in,
a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
******
400. (1) Every one who makes, circulates or publishes a prospectus, a statement or an account, whether written or oral, that he knows is false in a material particular, with intent
(a) to induce persons, whether ascertained or not, to become shareholders or partners in a company,
(b) to deceive or defraud the members, shareholders or creditors, whether ascertained or not, of a company, or
(c) to induce any person to

(i) entrust or advance anything to a company, or

(ii) enter into any security for the benefit of a company,
(d) [Repealed, 1994, c. 44, s. 26]
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
********

I am convinced that altering a document with signatures already afixed to imply those people wrote something the opposite of what they wrote is in fact a crime under the criminal code and I disagree with Unionist on this point.

Had the document not been signed before it was altered that would have been immoral but to change a document after it is signed is illegal-- what is the purpose of a signature other than a personal statement of agreement and intent that belongs to the person who so signed?

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:48

#38

Life, the unive...

Unionist you clearly know almost nothing about how government works or are being willfully obtuse.

The two officals would not have received a copy of the altered document. Documents like that flow up, not down. The Minister actually could have made the decision to de-fund without all the stupidity. That was within her rights. Not a proper decision, but one she could make. However, when this broadly ecumenical group became a political hot potato some major butt covering was needed, so Oda did what she did. Until the document was made public there was a possibility that they simply might not have know what was done with their signatures. Up until then the answers being given by Abbott and Oda were consistent with a government making a bone-headed decision, and obviously partisan one, but still one they had every right to make (unfortunetly) and not necessarily that outright misrepresentation was going on. Your vitriol is very misplaced.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:50

#39

Sean in Ottawa

Now if Oda's defense is 366 (5) -- that the PMO asked her to forge the document then someone in the PMO can carry the can -- if the PM asked then it would be him. So be it.

I am not certain Oda is guilty [ETA of a criminal offence] given that a request from the PMO would make her innocent but someone is and the only defense she has is to prove someone else guilty. This is not a small matter. If Canadians can accept this then we should just stop the pretense of holding elections -- we will take anything and everything and have no concerns about accountability, individual rights (for those who actually sign documents) rule of law or process. The apathy that is rampant in Canada is a significant part of the problem-- so serious that we could even wonder if this minister could possibly survive. In fact this is not just a resignation offense. This is a government falling offense and if we do not draw the line here it is already to late.

ETA-- I should clarify this by saying she was speaking for the Cabinet when she made the offense and the fact she was not fired immediately upon admission of what she did makes this a Cabinet offense. There should be a motion of non-confidence in this government at the earliest opportunity-- don't bother waiting for a budget-- go on this!

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:52

#40

Sean in Ottawa

People here should be calling for the non-confidence motion on this. The Cabinet and PM have accepted that it is ok to commit fraud. What more do you need?

Opposition? Backbone? Any of you?

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:53

#41

Lens Solution

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Boom Boom the trouble will be the vote will have to come before the break- which is Friday. They can probably ride it out until then. Once the House resumes sitting on the 28th other issues will supplant it. So even if there is a vote to censure the tie in by the media will likely be short.

Why the heck do the MP's get a break in February? They only just got back a couple of weeks ago from a 6-week Christmas break.

Tue, 2011-02-15 18:55

#42

Life, the unive...

Don't ask me I didn't set the calendar. They are scheduled to not sit from the adjournment on the 18th until the Feb 28th. Then they are back until March 11 and off again until March 21. After which hopefully this sorry excuse for a government will fall and we Canadians will show some moxy and replace it with a much better one.

Tue, 2011-02-15 19:08

#43

Lens Solution

It's time that Canadians demand that their MP's spend more time in the House. I follow American politics closely, and from what I can tell, the members of Congress do not get anywhere near as many breaks as our MP's do.

Tue, 2011-02-15 19:49

#44

Boom Boom

P&P said something is scheduled for March 3 - maybe Oda before the committee again?

Tue, 2011-02-15 20:29

#45

Sean in Ottawa

If the opposition does not push non-con on this-- don't expect them to vote down the budget a few weeks later. If they want an election or think they will have one on the budget it is better to go on this-- before the government tries to buy votes.

Also Canadians are fairly right wing economically and Harper would do better in a budget frame than the fraud-autocratic-contempt for parliament-lying to the people frame which is where they have their weakness. This is the better issue.

Why did you force the election?

We had no choice, we could not support a government that defrauds parliament with doctored documents-- Harper and his entire Cabinet expressed approval for that and we want to know if Canadians agree.

Tue, 2011-02-15 23:17

#46

Boom Boom

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Why did you force the election?

We had no choice, we could not support a government that defrauds parliament with doctored documents-- Harper and his entire Cabinet expressed approval for that and we want to know if Canadians agree.

That's actually a great idea in my opinion.

But, like someone said on P&P, the electorate will probably vote the Cons back in because they feel the economy is actually doing not so bad. The electorate is probably rolling their eyes at all the fuss the Opposition is making over this - they probably feel it's an honest mistake, and they'll vote the Cons back in, and it looks close to a majority situation with the latest poll today. The electorate probably doesn't give a fig - they want the gov't to concentrate on jobs, jobs, jobs - and they're buying into this bullshit image of the Cons as great managers. As long as they have a job, the majority of the electorate probably doesn't care in the least about House of Commons stuff.

Wed, 2011-02-16 01:07

#47

Lens Solution

It's an interesting idea, Sean, but I'm not sure if it would happen. The pundits and commentators (many of whom are Conservative) in the Canadian media would say Canadians don't want an election because of something like the Oda issue and that it would be wrong to have an election over it. They would say the election or "ballot question" has to be about the economy.

So I'm not sure if the opposition parties will have the guts to pull the plug.

Wed, 2011-02-16 03:08

#48

NDPP

'She Has To Go'

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/15/she-has-to-go/

"Ned Franks, the dean of parliamentary scholars passes judgment on Bev Oda.

'My belief is she has to go. There is no excuse for what she did. She altered a document to misrepresent a recommendation - and then she claimed to she hadn't done it. Those are two of the worst offences a minister can do,' says Dr. Franks.

'She may resign but the House of Commons might still find her guilty of contempt ot Parliament. The last time somebody was found guilty of contempt of Parliament was in 1913. It's a very rare thing.'"

Wed, 2011-02-16 04:40

#49

Lens Solution

The Ottawa Citizen also calls for Oda's removal:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/amused/4291541/story.html

Wed, 2011-02-16 06:42

#50

JKR

Some questions still to be answered:

TIMELINE: Oda and the Kairos funding

Quote:
Dec. 9, 2010: CIDA executives and Oda appear at a Commons committee. The executives tell MPs on the committee they didn't put "not" in the document. Oda says she didn't do it either and doesn't know who did. But the minister stands by the decision to deny the organization's funding.

Who did the CIDA executives think made the decision to deny the funding? Did the CIDA executives know Oda was lying to Parliament? Did Oda lie to the CIDA executives? What did Oda tell CIDA executives?

Will someone be able to interview Singh and Biggs to find out their side?

Quote:

Feb. 14, 2011: Oda apologizes to the House for "confusion," and says it was her decision to go against staff recommendation. But there is still no answer as to who wrote "not" on the document.

Who wrote "not" on the document. Will journalists be able to interview that person?

-----

Now that Harper has refused to fire her, he is also in contempt of Parliament. If Oda is found in contempt of Parliament, Harper must also now be found in contempt. This is a classic battle between the executive and legislative. If Harper can get away with this, he will have made the executive even more tyranical then it is now.

If Oda does not resign and Harper does not fire her, then the House has no recourse but to find them both in contempt of Parliamnet and to bring the government down in a vote of non-confidence.

If MP's allow Harper and Oda to get away with this then effectively the rule of law in the House of Commons has been obliterated. Morally MP's in the House of Commons have to stick up for their legislative body against the unlawfulness of the executive. The MP's must not allow the executive to run roughshod over the legislative. If they don't stick up for the House of Commons, the MP's themselves are in contempt of Parliament.

If a cop sees a rape taking place, they are duty bound to intercede. In this case, MP's are duty bound to intercede in response to a crime being perpetrated upon the legislative by the executive. If a cop does nothing when seeing a rape, what are we to think of that cop? What consequences does that cop face? The House of Commons is in the same position as that cop. They are duty bound to intercede. If they don't then they can no longer be seen as true democrarts.

The legislature is the heart of democracy. All Canadians should stick up for our legislature that represents us. Egyptians seem to have a better understanding of this then we do. An election would allow Canadians to stick up for their democracy and for themselves.

A key issue in the next election must now be reigning in the executive's powers that have become tyranical. Here are some changes that should be proposed:

- End the power of the executive (GG/PM) to dissolve Parliament. Only a vote by Parliament should lead to its dissolution.

- End the power of the executive (GG/PM) to prorogue Parliament. Only a vote by Parliament should lead to its prorogation.

- All appointments made by the executive (GG/PM) must be approved by a vote by Parliament.

MP's are duty bound to stand up for our democracy even if it means losing an election over it. They have no alternative.

Wed, 2011-02-16 08:30

#51

Sean in Ottawa

Lens Solution wrote:

It's an interesting idea, Sean, but I'm not sure if it would happen. The pundits and commentators (many of whom are Conservative) in the Canadian media would say Canadians don't want an election because of something like the Oda issue and that it would be wrong to have an election over it. They would say the election or "ballot question" has to be about the economy.

So I'm not sure if the opposition parties will have the guts to pull the plug.

I don't think so and if the opposition could not get that message out -- when it caused a vote then there is no point having an election -- ever.

I think this is very basic and even the thickest of people can get it. If they can't get this-- how are they up for an argument on economics coming from the budget?

People are already aware an election is likely I don't think any of those arguments would fly and I don't think Canadians even with Con cheerleaders will punish the opposition for bringing down a government over fraud-- no the whole thing comes to guts but this is the right strategy.

Otherwise the Cons are going to force it on their territory later

Pages

Topic locked