Saturday, March 19, 2011

Globe And Mail Oda Editorial-Facts Don't Matter...

Today's editorial in the Globe and Mail is a perfect example of lazy journalism, and the reason why most Canadians have tuned tuned out to all the faux scandals screamed about by the opposition parties and msm. Today's editorial takes Bev Oda to task for the insertion of the word "not" into the now famous Kairos document. The fact the government presented to committee other documents similarly changed to deny funding for other projects seems lost on the Globe. Case in point:

"That Ministers have the prerogative to make funding decisions in their departments is not in dispute. But is this any way to run a department? Couldn’t new forms be printed with a “Do Not Fund” box to avoid confusion? Instead, we have government by handwritten insertion. With such improvisation, poor decision-making is sure to follow, and the potential for abuse is high.

And that is evident when you combine Ms. Oda’s testimony with that of Margaret Biggs, the president of the Canadian International Development Agency (effectively, Ms. Oda’s deputy minister). It is now clear that the Ms. Biggs had signed off on a “Yes” decision to fund Kairos before the “Not” was inserted."

Question for the Globe. Did you even bother to research anything before putting this to print? Apparently not. I notice you mention the head of Cida, Ms. Biggs. Perhaps it might have given your editorial a little more credibility if you had actually taken the time to look into Ms. Biggs testimony before committee previously. Most notably:

"Ms. Margaret Biggs (President of CIDA): Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. 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.

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."

So those few sentences pretty much throw your whole editorial out the window, with not a shred of credibility left to go with it. Adding the word "not" was common practice. That practice has now been changed with a new form to allow for denial by the minister. Ms. Biggs also alluded to the fact she already knew the minister was not going to approve the Kairos funding ahead of the word not being added. The form, according to Biggs, was returned to her with the word "not" inserted, so she was fully aware of the change as well as denial of funding.

You know, I'm not a professional journalist. Nor am I a professional blogger. But I know the value of importance and having my facts straight before putting it out there for others to read. One would hope the Globe sees this, and sees fit to correct the record. It's something any newspaper that considers itself reputable would do. You might also want to check and see when the word "not" was inserted. The testimony is all there for all to see.


wilson said...

Did these crack journos even watch the committee proceedings?
Walsh said the memo was internal, and as advice to the Minister, should not have been made public and was no business of Parliamentarians.
Thusly does not have any relevence in the motion 'misleading or untruths' statements spoken in the House

Mike said...

So in otherwords, when Oda testified before the committe last year that he staff recommended not to fund Kairos, she was lying then. Because if her "Not" was inserted they obviously did recommend continuing funding.

Thus Oda lied to the committee and is in contempt of Parliament.

You crackerjacks really ought to pay attention to ALL the hearings...

Anonymous said...

Mike....look at the CPAC videos of the committee....your getting your info from the Star and CBC....Your wrong.

paulsstuff said...

sorry Mike, the whole supposed controversy revolves around who wrote "not" onto the document. Oda testified she didn't know who added it, probably because she was out of the country at the time. Her office has 10+ staff working at any given time. Oda was right in her statement she didn't know who added the word in.

So I have to ask, did you even read the testimomy of Ms. Biggs I Posted? Because judging by your ignorance I'm guessing you didn't. The Globe states in the editorial the government continues to add "not" onto documents, when Bigg's own testimony shows that to be wrong.

Bigg's also testified she was aware that the Kairos funding would be denied funding before the application was even sent to Oda's office, and that once the word "not" was added the document was returned to her.

You highlight the entire problem with the news outlets in this country. You repeat the opposition parties talking points verbatim regardless of the fact they are wrong.

Anonymous said...

The committee of the coalition have already made up their minds to abuse their powers in these committees to bring down this honest, hard working Govt. All the testamony heard over days, of witnesses, and the coalition want it all to be hidden from the public. They want to show a 2 page report ommiting the evidence of the witnesses. That is not ethics or democracy. That is a Govt. Cuba and Iran style.This coalition want to keep Canadians in the dark by sensoring the testamony. WHY? Because they will have the lefty media alongside to print their falsehoods to Canadians, to booster their cause. The Liberals are down in the polls, worse then Dion...the NDP will never form Govt. other then by a coalition against an elected Govt. by the people.The NDP vote on the long gun registry will bring them down. The Block just care about Quebec, and separating from Canada and will be getting $5 BILLION dollars from the coalition for their support. PM Harper doesn't fold to blackmail. PM Harper works for Canadians and the economy and not a not.
This will come back to bite the slimy, unethical, undemocratic Coalition with their faux scandles a week BS.
Canadians have been watching, and it won't work.

Anonymous said...

Canadians don't take lessons on ethics and democracy from Liberals.

The Lberano$ are upset because Kairos didn't get funded. They want the Alberta oil sands shut down...they are against free trade and Israel.90% of their funding goes for their wages and 10% goes to campaign for the Liberal party.No wonder the Liberals funded them when they were the Govt. More hands in your pockets.Thank you Bev Oda for saving Taxpayers 7 Million dollars from these maggots.
CBC is next to be cut down to size.

Anonymous said...

The coalition committee want to kick committee workers out of their rooms to allow their MEDIA brothers in for this side show on Monday.
Sun TV News is coming and all their antics will be in full view of the public. The days of the lefty slime and corrupt Govt's. aided by their propaganda CBC is coming to an end.All those special interest groups of the Liberals can suck on someone elses teets.
BTW, why did the Liberals not allow Shiela Frazer to audit all those 17 companies where 9 BILLION dollars went missing down another Liberal regime stinkhole? Canadians arn't worried about a not. Canadians worry about theft and it hasn't happened in THE HARPER GOVT.
PM Harper is busy with Libya and Japan and the economy, and the coalition will feel the wrath of Canadians if they pull any more stunts.Take that to the bank.

Adrian said...

The fact remains that the government left the impression, deliberately, that CIDA had cut off Kairos based on not meeting criteria. Which is false. Misleading the public appears to be a common trait of this government.

Anonymous said...

Adrian...your wrong like the rest of the media, purposely. Kairos was not refunded. That is the decision of the Minister.CITA knew this. It is in Cita Predident Mrs Biggs testamony that the media and coalition chose to ignore. Mrs Biggs said at no time did Bev Oda say or leave the impression that Kairis was to be funded.NO, NOT, period.Misleading the public is a trait of the coalition and all the Liberal media.
Is that you Pat Martin?

Joe Hueglin said...

(1)That the paper was signed by CIDA officials prior to the "not" clearly demonstrates it met CIDA priorities.
(2) Whether or not Oda was influenced we know not. The "not" met the CPC priority of ingratiating the Harper Government with Israel and its supporters by Kenney in Jerusalem, all MPs on their "talking points" during a break and Kenney on CBC Calgary.
(3) 67 CPC electoral district associations were to benefit by the "In and Out" of National money - as well as enabling spending above Elections Canada Limits of available funds. Indisputably at the taxpayers expense for accepting and returning funds.

paulsstuff said...

Joe, you should educate yourself on the supposed in and out scandal. Take the time to do some research. Look at examples put forth showing Liberal. NDP. and Bloc candidates and the National Parties doing the same type of accounting practices. Then ask yourself why if this was illegal and all parties did it Elections Canada only took issue with Conservative candiadtes.

Also ask yourself why Elections Canada's own rule book allowed for this practice, then changed it in 2007, after the 2006 election. Then explain to me how Conservative's can be charged retroactively for a supposed scam that at the point of the 2006 election actually conformed to EC rules.

Joe Hueglin said...


Elkections Canada empirically came across the in and out as they processed Candidates claims for reimbursement - donation in/expense out.

Some got their lucre before it was noticed and stopped and, and , and ...

Where is the evidence other parties have done the same? Did other parties have the need to do the same; spend above the limit? Maybe they reached their max, that would be your first piece of evidence. I do not know.

The ball is in your court in this file.


paulsstuff said...

Joe, the information is out there. Rsearch it. Maybe start with evidence produced by the Conservative Party in the original lawsuit that included among the notable MP's doing the in and out Libby Davies, Olivia Chow, Marlene Jennings.

You can start here:

Scroll down to Stephen's post from Matrch 8th titled in...outt...

Andrew Coyne said it best. When the opposition parties are questioned about using the same ina nd out accounting, the only reply you get back is Elections Canada only charged the Conservatives. No denial they did it.

paulsstuff said...

paulsstuff said...

Also worth pointing out Joe that Elections Canada fought and won not to allow evidence supplied by the Conservative Party showing the other parties doing the same accounting practices in the 2006 election.

If I'm not mistaken NDP MP Olivia Chow used a reverse in and out as her campaign was over it's allowable riding limit, charging local ad expenses to the National Party to beat the cap. It was a NDP candidate for sure.

paulsstuff said...

So Joe, there are reciepts, ads, quotes from Liberal MP's regarding the same in and out. What say you?

Joe Hueglin said...


The main concern for me is that accepting and sending back donations from a National Party the sending back was listed as an election expense for which Elections Canada was to reimburse a portion.

Had Elections Canada not noticed 67 CPC candidates expenses/ reimbursement would have been inflated. How many from other parties is unknown assuming it occurred.

Was this right or wrong? Electionds Canada holds it to be wrong and illegal. The court(s) will decide.

Probably court(s) in that whoever loses will undoubtedly appeal.


(3) 67 CPC electoral district associations were to benefit by the "In and Out" of National money - as well as enabling spending above Elections Canada Limits of available funds. Indisputably at the taxpayers expense for accepting and returning funds.