Pay no attention...

[Cobalt_Kid]

...to the man behind the curtain.

How many people actually believe it was Bev Ota who made the decision to cut funding to Kairos. The clear pattern of the last five years has been of Harper concentrating all the power of government into the PMO and building firewalls to strictly control access to information there. No one on the government benches has freedom of action, they'd be gone if they showed any real individuality.

Harper is pulling all the strings, it was his decision alone to cut funding to Kairos, Ota's task was to carry out the well established conservative tactic of deceiving Parliament and by extention all Canadians. When the PM gets up in front of Parliament and tells us Ota has been clear all along, from his perspective she was...that doesn't change the fact that once again we've been lied to.

 

[lone wolf]

Harper's steadfast support for Ota's sleight-of-hand seems to bear up your point

 

[Avro]

Seems fishy to me.

Psst...btw ...it's Oda...not Ota.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Seems fishy to me.

Psst...btw ...it's Oda...not Ota.

Thanks, normally I don't even notice the individual ministers unless they stick their little heads up... a game of Wac-a-mole anyone?

 

[polaris]

I believe Kairos is a "religious christian" organization that was slightly critical of Isreali actions. Because of that criticism it found itself out of step with Harper and the Tapeworms who march to the tune of US Republicans vis-a-vis Isreal.

What I find confusing and frightening is that even the most deliberately blind Conservative supporters want Canada to be evermore like the US.

Just looking at that corrupt and collapsing cartoon western gives me the shivers.

 

[Just the Facts]

I'm not extremely familiar with this incident, but from what I gather, it's much ado about very little. It's Oda's prerogative to direct/overrule her staff, and it's Harper's preorogative to direct/overrule his ministers. EAO's story about Iranian ships in the Suez is far more newsworthy.

 

[Colpy]

...to the man behind the curtain.

How many people actually believe it was Bev Ota who made the decision to cut funding to Kairos. The clear pattern of the last five years has been of Harper concentrating all the power of government into the PMO and building firewalls to strictly control access to information there. No one on the government benches has freedom of action, they'd be gone if they showed any real individuality.

Harper is pulling all the strings, it was his decision alone to cut funding to Kairos, Ota's task was to carry out the well established conservative tactic of deceiving Parliament and by extention all Canadians. When the PM gets up in front of Parliament and tells us Ota has been clear all along, from his perspective she was...that doesn't change the fact that once again we've been lied to.

You are probably correct, I hate to admit.

It would explain why Harper is backing her so steadfastly, to the detriment of the government.

I doubt, however, that Harper told her to alter signed documents, or to lie to Parliament..........probably her instructions were to kill the funding........a "will nobody rid me of this?" moment......

Oda has to go, now Harper owes us an apology.

As usual, Rex Murphy is dead-on,

So when Mr. Harper stands and proceeds condescendingly to “explain” to the House that this is really what the whole controversy is about – the overruling – not even acknowledging, airily waving away, the real charges of misleading the House, or altering the document – he loses most people.
They see him playing a game and it’s off-putting. His affected low-key manner and dismissive schoolmaster tones don’t really help matters either.
But it’s also this pattern the Conservatives have — and they take from their Prime Minister — of refusing when legitimate questions are raised, or issues brought forward, even to acknowledge that these questions and issues should or must be discussed.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-mrs-harper-your-boy-has-an-attitude-problem/

 

[Avro]

You are probably correct, I hate to admit.

It would explain why Harper is backing her so steadfastly, to the detriment of the government.

I doubt, however, that Harper told her to alter signed documents, or to lie to Parliament..........probably her instructions were to kill the funding........a "will nobody rid me of this?" moment......

Oda has to go, now Harper owes us an apology.

As usual, Rex Murphy is dead-on,

Honest comments.

How refreshing.

Except for Rex, he can be a douche sometimes.:lol:

 

[taxslave]

You would think that by now politicians would stop trying to hide what they do and lie about it since most of the time we eventually find out anyway. Would it not be easier to just stand up and sat "I killed the funding because I have the authority to do so. If you don't like it show your displeasure at the next election." That would have the added bonus of cutting all the mindless drivel from thousands of journalists too.

 

[Tonington]

I'm not extremely familiar with this incident, but from what I gather, it's much ado about very little.

Changing signed/finalized documents and lying about it to Parliament is much ado about nothing?

A similar action would be grounds for termination in the corporation I work for, to say nothing about the ethics involved with such actions.

 

[JLM]

Changing signed/finalized documents and lying about it to Parliament is much ado about nothing?

A similar action would be grounds for termination in the corporation I work for, to say nothing about the ethics involved with such actions.

Are ethics a criteria for being in government?

 

[polaris]

Are ethics a criteria for being in government?

Ethics don't seem to be a criteria for being a voter.

 

[lone wolf]

Ethics don't seem to be a criteria for being a voter.

Voters don't get to make life and death decisions either. Go figure, eh....

 

[damngrumpy]

Before getting to the point of who knew what and when. Changing a document that is signed off on
is by law "Uttering a False Document" it is much more serious than forgery and can get one a
sentence of 15 years in prison. In addition lying to parliament is a very serious crime in and of
itself. Usually constituting dismissal. The Prime Minister might not have known what was done in
this case. I don't defend Harper but people in politics sometimes do the damndest things for their own
purposes and this may have been one of those.
The truth is waiting to be heard in this case as it is possible the PM and others knew and if that were
the case it would be very serious indeed for it would suggest there is a conspiracy which if true would
bring down the House.
Harper is doing what all leaders do, they defend their Cabinet Minister until it is no longer prudent to do
so. I defend so and so to the very end is really the kiss of death, for the leader knows at some point
they will have to abandoned that position. This is also the reason the opposition is pushing not to get rid
of an errant minister but to claim victory over the governing party and giving their opponent a political
black eye. Even worse we are paying for all this, when everyone should just fess up and get on with
what will happen anyway. The Minister will resign, the PM is say sorry for the dastardly deep and the
opposition will pat each other on the back and you and I will collectively write the check for the entertainment
we all got from waiting for the outcome. I am glad that we do not have to wait for the final answer after
the commercials segment is over, as question period is at least commercial free.

 

[Tonington]

Are ethics a criteria for being in government?

To say nothing about ethics...

I left ethics out for a reason old timer Even without ethical considerations, the legal considerations of lying to Parliament are much ado about something, rather than nothing.

 

[Unforgiven]

She altered a signed document to change the meaning of the agreement altogether. That's criminal. She lied about it in Parliament, that's solid ground for removal of the ministry post and if Harper had any ethics other than hold on to power at all costs, he would have booted her from caucus already. That, after all the lip service Harper has done to accountability, is the shame of it all in Canadian politics. We need these guys like we need more lawyers.

 

[JLM]

Ethics don't seem to be a criteria for being a voter.

Well, no, but voters don't set agendas.

To say nothing about ethics...

I left ethics out for a reason old timer Even without ethical considerations, the legal considerations of lying to Parliament are much ado about something, rather than nothing.

I agree, but it's probably more the rule than the exception REGARDLESS of which party is in power.

 

[damngrumpy]

Protocol in a democracy that governs the House, also dictates that the leader must
demonstrate some loyalty within the ranks of his party even for a short period of time.
Unless there are pictures with sheep of course.
The opposition knows this as well. It must appear to be the will of Parliament itself
not just the leader to remove a minister. Remember theatre may not mean much to
you and I but the pressure valves work well in charged situations and the slow release
of that pressure is what makes the system work in a strange way.
While I agree with what is said about the original ethics, regardless of who is in power
or the party the process has to take its course, as the long term public perception is
what counts not the short term. Yes Harper has defended her, and she is as guilty as
hell by her own admission, but to just throw her under the bus has implication within
the Conservative Party and with the Canadian People
In the US remember Richard Nixon? People dealt harshly with him, and he too was guilty
and forced from office in disgrace, but never charged and prosecuted for his crimes.
The reason is most politicians and advisers knew that with the passing of time people
would likely forgive him and point to the things he did right in their long term final judgement.
Their vision was right. At the end most Americans forgave him and some suggest he was
given a raw deal, this turned out to be an impediment within the Republican Party for
nearly a decade. For those who say it is unethical, you are right, but ethics and history
don't always have equal value on the judgement page of history and we have to be mindful
of that.

Harper has likely already made the decision to remove the Minister, it is just a question of when.
It could not come at a worse time, as I believe the Government was thinking about an election
when this hit the fan. If he moves to quickly he risks a backlash inside the Tory Party if he
waits too long, the backlash will come from Canadians, and the timing will be to let the Minister
resign in the next ten days or so. If it doesn't they will pay for this during an election as ethics
becomes an issue.

 

[Colpy]

Mr. Jonas bemoans his fate as Canadian journalist:

As an Italian columnist, I could be covering a salacious scandal right now, involving a stripper and a prime minister. I could be researching sultry Karima El Mahroug, 17, and the old goat of the Mediterranean, 74-year-old Silvio Berlusconi.
And what am I researching as a Canadian columnist? Nothing salacious, I assure you. A scandal involving International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It’s not fair.

Poor Curious George:

The scandal is that when the government finally stopped subsidizing KAIROS, not having the courage to do it openly tried to do so surreptitiously. After the ranking bureaucrats put “funding recommended” (or some such) in the relevant document, the minister, Ms. Oda, before signing it, had someone insert the word “not” by hand, which turned it into “funding not recommended.” It was as if she had tried to make it appear that her decision was a staff recommendation, when the opposite was the case.
Ms. Oda couldn’t remember having ordered this to be done, and at first her memory lapse persisted even when questioned by her fellow MPs. Why? Search me. Lying to Parliament, besides being a hanging offence, offers no benefit when simply saying, “I’m the boss and it’s my decision” would end the matter. Staff recommendations don’t bind ministers. Civil servants are there for their advice, not their consent.

Worth the read......

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-underage-prostitues-we-get-funding-scandals/

 

[Nuggler]

Thanks, normally I don't even notice the individual ministers unless they stick their little heads up... a game of Wac-a-mole anyone?

Think of "there's a nasty Oda in the room".