# Bev Oda



## cphansen (20 Feb 2011)

I have a hard time understanding why she is so strongly supported by Harper.

To me, the situation is very clear.

Bev Oda is the minister and as such is responsible for her department to the Canadian people.

As the Minister, she needs to use her best judgement and does not have to follow her departmental staff's recommendations. She can disregard them and really has the duty to disregard them if she feels it is in the interest of Canada to do so.

The problem though is in the way she disregarded them. She took an already signed document and had the word not inserted which reversed the advice of the signees. There was no indication that the originaters saw or agreed with the change in the document. To me it would have been far better if she had just noted on the document that she had read it and disagreed with it so the department would not be issuing the grant.

Instead she just had the not inserted without taking responsibility for it, and then denied all knowledge of it to Parliament. She took no personal or ministrial responsibility.

This is not the action of someone I would like to have in my  chain of command. If you can't stand by your decisions then you shouldn't be in a position to make decisions

Corrected my last two sentences to make clear what I wanted to say


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Feb 2011)

I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?


----------



## Journeyman (20 Feb 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?


Not a signed document, without acknowledgement by the signatories.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Feb 2011)

IF you did that with a 5$ cheque that would be fraud and you could get up to 5 years. But if it is a document worth 7 million,....

Oda has always been a train wreck. The sooner we drop her the better. We don't need another Guergis.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2011)

There is no questions that Ministerial prerogative permitted the rescinding of the approval; however, normal procedures would be to minute the signature sheet, make the amendment (including own signature block), and then advise the signatories that the approval had been rescinded.  The Financial Administration Act is clear on Section 32 authorizations and the procedures for encumbrance, commitment or release of public funds.

Regards
G2G


----------



## cphansen (20 Feb 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?



What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.



Write a letter (not an email) to the PMO and your MP. Complaining here won't change anything.


----------



## cphansen (20 Feb 2011)

Good idea, not that I think it will do any good but if I don't write the letters, how can I think of myself as a good citizen


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.



If you had followed the total story....she was out of town, verbally directed the change................how was she to initial it?


----------



## cphansen (20 Feb 2011)

Thanks for the info, does that mean a Minister has to be in town to authorize any changes, because they couldn't initial it otherwise? 

Seems to me there are things like courier services, faxes, emails etc. and simply writing by order of the minister and the person making the change would have to note it. 

There are undoubtably procedures in place to make sure that changes like this are recorded.

Simply inserting the word not, changes a recommendation made by her department in a document sent to her without the knowledge of her department. 

It seems to me to be an evasion of her responsibility and duty to stand by her decision. It looks like an attempt to shift the decision to her department. 

While she has the right and duty to override her department's recommendation, she does not have a right or priviledge to try to make it seem like someone else made the decision. 

She needs to stand by her decision and because of her actions she should now explain why and how she came to a different decision than her department


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, does that mean a Minister has to be in town to authorize any changes, because they couldn't initial it otherwise?
> 
> Seems to me there are things like courier services, faxes, emails etc. and simply writing by order of the minister and the person making the change would have to note it.
> 
> ...



ex·trap·o·late (k-strp-lt)

To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2011)

Oda, like any minster, has a right, sometimes a political duty, to decline the advice of her officials and to demand that they enact policies that run directly counter to their best judgments.

In this case she made two mistakes: one minor ("editing" a signed document rather than demanding a "clean" revision); and one major (misleading the HoC). She should be forgiven the first but she should resign for the second. Harper should reapoint her to cabinet after a brief (six monhs or until after the necxt general election) spell in the "woodshed."


----------



## cphansen (20 Feb 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ex·trap·o·late (k-strp-lt)
> 
> To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.



Unfortunately extrapolation is still a guess, even if it is a logical educated guess and as such can be influenced by the guesser's attitude and prejudices. This is one of those murky areas where I, for one, do not want to have my attitudes influence my guess instead I need more info so back to the papers.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Feb 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> While she has the right and duty to override her department's recommendation, she does not have a right or priviledge to try to make it seem like someone else made the decision.



Is she ultimately not responsible for the actions of her department? Whether she initialed the change or not, she ordered the change and was therefore responsible for the lack of funding. The person that recommended the funding in the first place would probably have been completely OK with not recommending the funding on her order, if she had made the change before the memo was drafted. She is accountable for the funds and decided they should not go to this organization and corrected an oversight.

I think her biggest fault is how she handled the situation and her explanation to Parliament about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...
> I think her biggest fault is how she handled the situation and her explanation to Parliament about it.




Agreed, and I think her resignation would be good policy - respect for parliament - and good politics - taking responsibility/owning up, etc. I believe it, her resignation, would help her  party (taking the issue off the table) and her own re-election chances, if she's running again.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Feb 2011)

Ministers are out of town all the time.  There are ways and means of properly recording an official decision document.  Given the gravity of overriding senior staff recommendation, there should absolutely have been more than a "because she told me to" scribble by a staffer whom the Minister spoke to to direct the NOT be added, yet strangely the Minister can't recall who he staffer was she was talking to?  That's sloppy staffing and execution of Ministrial mandate in my books.

What should have happened was the decision document include the staff recommendation, then spaced below on a separate line for the Minister, a decision election phrase:

APPROVED / NOT APPROVED

and the appropriate decision by the Minister circled and signed beneath the selection.  As well, proper procedure to be followed for a decision by the Minister 'remotely' would require a note in the place of the Minister's signature block indicating the means and details by which the Minister's official decision was relayed, i.e. "Not approved, per telecon between Minister Oda/Staffer 'X', 1:35pm 6 Jan 2011."  Then there would be no question as to the decision, and how the decision was officially registered.

It smacks of sloppiness both by the Minister and by her staff. It is the responsibility of officials of Government, both elected and public servant, to ensure the taxpayers' money is managed in a responsible and accountable manner.

Regards
G2G


----------



## cphansen (21 Feb 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ministers are out of town all the time.  There are ways and means of properly recording an official decision document.  Given the gravity of overriding senior staff recommendation, there should absolutely have been more than a "because she told me to" scribble by a staffer whom the Minister spoke to to direct the NOT be added, yet strangely the Minister can't recall who he staffer was she was talking to?  That's sloppy staffing and execution of Ministrial mandate in my books.
> 
> What should have happened was the decision document include the staff recommendation, then spaced below on a separate line for the Minister, a decision election phrase:
> 
> ...



Sloppiness is the right word. Evasion would have been the word I would think of, but that may be a little strong.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2011)

Also see the article at link: Friday, February 18, 2011, The Coalition, Media Vipers Brood 

From Chasing Apple Pie   http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 22, 2011
*
Media Has Failed on the Oda "NOT" Story*

Over the last week the lame stream media has bombarded  print and the airwaves with the so called Minister Bev Oda forgery and how she lied stories about a document refusing funding for KAIROS which is actually an activist group that lobbies for social and ecological justice.. 

The media failed IMHO as usual to get to the facts and the truth. Photos of Ms. Oda  wearing sunglasses and smoking was plastered all over the papers to make her look in as bad light as possible. The photos have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.  They've hung her before all the facts are known. Instead they keep repeating the coalition talking points. Did they not pay attention to what was testified to in committee?  Did they not listen to what Margaret Biggs, CIDA's president and accounting officer had said?
_*
    Mr. Jean Dorion: Ms. Biggs, was the word “not” handwritten on the form that you signed on September 28, two months before the minister signed it?

    Ms. Margaret Biggs (President, Canadian International Development Agency): No, it wasn't, sir.

    Mr. Jean Dorion: So then, when you signed the form, you were in fact giving your approval. You were recommending approval, since the form states: “Recommendation: That you sign below to indicate you approve a contribution of $7,098,756 over four years for the above program.” So then, on September 28, you were recommending that the minister approve the project.

    Ms. Margaret Biggs: 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.*_

I don't know if it's just plain laziness, the strong dislike they have for PM Harper and his government, especially the women in this government, or is it incompetence?  There has not been any common sense fairness  in this story whatsoever.  For that you have to go to the blogs for that including this one from a Liberal blogger no less.  It is thorough, well though out, fair and clear. Others to check out are Climbing out of the Dark, CruxoftheMatter, Bluelikeyou, and The Iceman.  It has taken citizen journalists to do the job of the so called profession journalists.  No wonder the lame stream media is losing credibility.

Greg Weston from CBC stated something rather disturbing on Power and Politics the other day that really should be investigated. He hinted at maybe some collusion going between civil servants and media.  You can hear it here at the 18:45 mark. 
_
    “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.”_

What did Greg mean by "us anyway?"  If this is true, it's not good and I believe needs to be looked into.  This is a good example of why PM Harper and the Conservatives need a majority.  House needs to be cleaned in the service.

The media and the opposition coalition have taken it upon themselves to be prosecutor, judge,jury and executioner before all the evidence is in.  They are seeing what they want to see. They are hearing what they want to hear never mind the truth.  They are looking for out their own self interests only and are trying everything in the book to bring this government down even if it means ruining reputations in the process.  They don't' care. They don't care about you. They don't care about me. They don't care about the country.


----------



## DBA (2 Mar 2011)

A decent article on the issue that has source material (Hansard excerpts and an image of the document) : Just the Facts: How Bev Oda got tied up in “nots”.

Myself I would say read a day of Hansard and you will probably come to the same decision on what is said in the HoC as I have: "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" and best ignored. What few points are made are minuscule compared to the endless insults flying back and forth with the NDP being especially long winded and the worst of the lot.  As an example read Hansard for March 1st: 

40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 136
Tuesday, March 1, 2011​


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Mar 2011)

Stuff like this will end when the Conservatives get a majority and have a Conservative speaker in the House.  Not that Peter Milliken has done a bad job but partisanship seems to shine through at times.


----------



## Martino (18 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Stuff like this will end when the Conservatives get a majority and have a Conservative speaker in the House.  Not that Peter Milliken has done a bad job but partisanship seems to shine through at times.



What "stuff"? Responsible government?

Oda openly lied to a parliamentary committee, that's contempt regardless of the other charges laid against her.


----------



## brihard (18 Mar 2011)

Once upon a time a politician who coul dbe demosntrated to have lied to Parliament would have fallen upon her metaphorical sword and faded quickly into ignominy. 

There should be no room for her any longer in our government.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 Mar 2011)

Martino said:
			
		

> What "stuff"? Responsible government?
> 
> Oda openly lied to a parliamentary committee, that's contempt regardless of the other charges laid against her.


The beauty of responsible government is that the government being in contempt of the House is irrelevant because the only penalty is pulling the plug and that's happening within the week one way or another.  

I looked at questions and answers in committee and have trouble picking out the lies.  The answers to which questions were lies?  Perhaps the committee was expecting answers to questions they didn't ask.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Once upon a time a politician who coul dbe demosntrated to have lied to Parliament would have fallen upon her metaphorical sword and faded quickly into ignominy.
> 
> There should be no room for her any longer in our government.



Who would ever have thought a politician would lie?  Maybe most of the voting public thinks it's commonplace.  It's a big issue on CBC but unhead of in coffee shops.


----------



## Brasidas (18 Mar 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Who would ever have thought a politician would lie?  Maybe most of the voting public thinks it's commonplace.  It's a big issue on CBC but unhead of in coffee shops.



...again, what's "this stuff" that's going to end when the conservatives get a majority?

The liberals are hardly historically clean, but a majority and more power doesn't seem like a ticket honourable government. 

Dumping a deceitful minister might not lead to a 10% boost in the polls, but I doubt it would hurt conservative fortunes.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 Mar 2011)

Was Oda being deceitful?  I think she was toying with the hostile committee who couldn't figure out what questions to ask.  I suspect there was no untruthfulness involved in any of the answers but the net effect was to mislead.  When Oda and the powers that be realized the bad optics she came clean.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2011)

I prefer to be an optimist in all this. Instead of seeing boogeymen and deceitful politicians, I see a minister that wouldn't bow to the status quo and political fanagaling of special interests and saved the taxpayers over seven million dollars with a single word.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Mar 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> saved the taxpayers over seven million dollars with a single word.



Could we get her to write a long book ?


----------



## hold_fast (23 Mar 2011)

Too bad she couldn't properly save us seven million dollars by simply initialling the change, just as you'd initial any change on your cheque. Or maybe, you know, fess up to it when it came up in parliament instead of ducking around it. Then causing it to be drawn out and debated, wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars by wasting time.

Seriously, if you can't go and make a new document with one word inserted and then have that signed again as a legible legal document and instead would prefer to doodle in a change, you shouldn't be managing a McDonald's let alone in a position of public leadership.


----------



## JB 11 11 (23 Mar 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Then causing it to be drawn out and debated, wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars by wasting time.



Funny, I thought  that was what our minority governments been doing for the past few years? :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I prefer to be an optimist in all this. Instead of seeing boogeymen and deceitful politicians, I see a minister that wouldn't bow to the status quo and political fanagaling of special interests and saved the taxpayers over seven million dollars with a single word.


If she'd said that the first time she was asked, I think it would have taken a lot of the wind out of the Iggy-ites'/other anti-Tories' sails.


----------



## Danjanou (3 Jul 2012)

Sorry to revive a necro post but breaking news:

(reproduced with the usual caveats)



> *Embattled Bev Oda stepping down this month as member of Parliament
> *
> ..OTTAWA - Bev Oda, the embattled minister of international co-operation, is stepping down as an MP at the end of this month.
> 
> ...



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/embattled-bev-oda-stepping-down-month-member-parliament-170621144.html


----------



## Remius (3 Jul 2012)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/tory-minister-bev-oda-stepping-down-at-end-of-month-1.863576

Link here.


----------



## Danjanou (3 Jul 2012)

threads merged.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jul 2012)

I suspect we'll see a nice patronage post in her future, as her resignation (1) does a bit of otherwise awkward housecleaning and (2) provides a cover for a much-needed federal cabinet shuffle.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect we'll see a nice patronage post in her future, as her resignation (1) does a bit of otherwise awkward housecleaning and _*(2) provides a cover for a much-needed federal cabinet shuffle.*_



Well, according to the Right Honorable the Prime Minister, I'm RTFO.  Steady hand on the helm until he reaches the middle of his term (say summer 2013).


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2012)

Part of the non shuffle may be that Harper is purposely NOT responding to MSM speculation. He has done that pretty consistantly....it keeps them off guard if he does not do the predictable....


----------



## jeffb (6 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Part of the non shuffle may be that Harper is purposely NOT responding to MSM speculation. He has done that pretty consistently....it keeps them off guard if does not do the predictable....



I hope that is not the case. A good PM would ensure that his cabinet is aligned to best suit the needs of the country that his party is governing, not to score points in the political game. However, I suspect given the proclivity of the Harper government to spend as much time as it does worrying about the MSM, even during a majority government situation and while pretending that it doesn't, you may be right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2012)

See here; I still think John Ibbitson has it about right: Prime Minister Harper has two priorities: a balanced budget by 2015 and expanded trade.



> The first and foremost priority is to stay on track toward a balanced budget, which is the finance minister’s job. No one doubts Jim Flaherty’s ability to handle that task. Mr. Flaherty is on his way to becoming Canada’s longest serving finance minister.
> 
> The government’s other great priority, the one by which it will judge itself and be judged, is expanding trade. Even before Wednesday’s announcement, there was widespread expectation within the government and the public service that on this front stability would trump change.


From the _Globe and Mail_ article cited above.

Further, as Ibbitson says, "It was never likely that Mr. Harper would shake up a team that was doing exactly what he wants them to do: pulling out all stops to expand trade, especially resource exports to Asia."

This is not a remarkable cabinet, but then there are few times when men of the calibre of, say, Louis St Laurent and CD Howe could be attracted to public life and, fortunately, we don't live in them. (They being a World War (complicated by a national unity crisis), for St Laurent and the Great Depression for Howe.) It is likely that, in the PM"s view, the people who "best suit the needs of the country" in 2012 are at the cabinet table now.


----------



## jeffb (6 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is likely that, in the PM"s view, the people who "best suit the needs of the country" in 2012 are at the cabinet table now.



I don't disagree with you. The depth of talent in Parliament is unfortunately quite shallow (in all parties). My comment was directed at the idea that he may be making cabinet composition decisions based on keeping the MSM on their toes rather then good governance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with you. The depth of talent in Parliament is unfortunately quite shallow (in all parties). My comment was directed at the idea that he may be making cabinet composition decisions based on keeping the MSM on their toes rather then good governance.




I understood your original comment; I wanted to highlight two points, the very _ordinariness_ of the talent pool (a point upon which we appear to agree) and Prime Minister Harper's proclivity to "leave well enough alone."

But: I am also, reasonably, certain that he does like to confound the _experts_, especially the 'experts' in the media, and I am absolutely sure that partisan political considerations enter into every _cabinet making_ session, and have since Robert Walpole got the whole "prime minister is first among equals" thing going.


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2012)

MaCleans comes out with a different view............

Happy to see Oda go? Really, you shouldn’t be.
by Adam Goldenberg on Thursday, July 5, 2012
Article Link

Bev Oda’s resignation had as much to do with abortion as it did with foreign aid.

She left with neither a bang nor a whimper. After eight years in Parliament, six as a minister, she was simply gone, vanished, disappeared. Pushed out of the helicopter of political expediency, perhaps, or fed to the sharks beneath the Cabinet table.

Since her OJ trial, the international cooperation minister’s prospects, long a stretch, had turned to pulp. She could have resigned herself to the backbenches. She resigned her seat instead.

Her departure is no cause for celebration; it says much more about our politics than it does about Ms. Oda. Our standards have become so superficial that, where once we expected accountability, we demand damage control, instead.

Ministers are now mouthpieces. We judge them by their spin in Question Period and their sound bites in scrums. The federal Cabinet is so flimsy, so insubstantial, that a six-year veteran can be felled by a single glass of $16 orange juice.

Sure, Ms. Oda’s sins against parsimony were several, and accumulated over time. But she was, by the Harper government’s standards, a reasonably accomplished minister. At the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Ms. Oda presided over major shifts in Canada’s foreign aid policy; our help now goes to a smaller set of countries than before, and is less restricted once it gets there. Policy shifts like these may not grab headlines, but their significance outstrips their sizzle. But how much thought was given to Ms. Oda’s record before the Prime Minister showed her the door?

No, this was not a governing decision; it was a communications strategy. In that, it was anything but unusual. To smirk at this week’s turn of events is to take pleasure, if unwittingly, in the government’s way of doing business. Surely the banality of sheeple deserves less than mirth.

If the Conservatives’ opponents cannot resist raising a toast to Ms. Oda’s misfortune, they should take note of who is standing with them.

The government backbench and the Tory base will be glad to see her go, not because they value ministerial accountability, but because they object to the expenditure of public money on, well, just about anything. That includes MP pensions, per-vote subsidies for political parties, public broadcasting, seasonal Employment Insurance benefits—and orange juice, too.

Another group of Ms. Oda’s antagonists deserves special notice: the anti-choice crowd. Few, if any, organizations—and that includes the opposition parties—have spent as much time calling for her head as the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), which cheered her resignation in a statement on Wednesday:

“Oda has been notorious in her pro-abortion position,” it declared. “In 2010, Oda spoke against the stated decision of her leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, when he said that Canada would not pay for abortions in developing countries.” For that alone, said CLC National President Jim Hughes, “she should have been asked to resign.”

Whether or not it was his intention to do so, Mr. Harper has placated his pro-life supporters by sacking a minister who had the temerity to suggest that women in poor countries should enjoy the right to choose.

Still, one wonders whether Ms. Oda would have yet survived had she been quicker on her feet in the Commons, swifter in a scrum, or more charismatic on camera. After all, the well-toned Peter MacKay—he of the rugby pitch and the potato patch—is all but certain to stay in the Ministry, if not at National Defence, despite the fact that his gaffes will cost the taxpayer billions more than Ms. Oda’s stay at the Savoy.

And for the sheer comedy of Conservative Cabinet-making, look no further than Ms. Oda’s replacement: Julian Fantino, the erstwhile military procurement minister, whose single achievement in government has been to turn the slow-simmering F-35 fiasco into a full-blown boondoggle, the priciest in Canadian history.

For him: a promotion. For her: a pension. And, given that Ms. Oda was punished for abusing the public purse, it is worth noting that Mr. Fantino already collects several of the latter.
a little More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2012)

There's nothing much with which I would disagree in Adam Goldenberg's diatribe ... except for one sentence: _"After all, the well-toned Peter MacKay—he of the rugby pitch and the potato patch—is all but certain to stay in the Ministry, if not at National Defence, despite the fact that his gaffes will cost the taxpayer billions more than Ms. Oda’s stay at the Savoy."_

Mr, MacKay's gaffes were not the problem; Mr MacKay's _sin_ was to accept the _professional_ advice of the most senior military officers and civil servants in DND. Mr. MacKay didn't make up numbers, Mr. Mackay didn't 'cook the books' - his _officials_, admirals and generals and assistant deputy ministers, did that for him to him.

Had I been MND when this began to smell I would have booted Fonberg and Natynczyk out of the HQ building, from the 13th floor window, followed  by a few other very senior officers and civil servants. I wouldn't have blamed them ... just fired them. (I know, the DM DND and CDS serve at the PM's pleasure, not the MND's - but I'll bet PM Harper would have backed Mackay had he (having secured the Clerk's support) said, "Look, PM, it's them or me, and if I go I'll make a fuss about government management. They, on the other hand will go quietly ~ the media never listens to generals and civil servants, they're not news, not even when they get fired.")


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Jul 2012)

How is the F-35 the "Priciest boondoggle in Canadian history"? This project, aside from the $$$ spent on the procurement process and R & D, hasn't cost Canada a cent, as there is no money yet spent.  

Sounds like Liberal/NDP driving at a story, even if the facts don't necessarily align.

I do concur with Mr. Campbell that Mr MacKay should be looking to sack the CDS or at the very least the CAS or the procurement staff for the errors and oversights in the procurement of this kit.  It's easy to say that as the boss he should be accountable, but in reality, he's a civvie, and his advisers at all levels said that this was the answer and withheld details.  No matter how much leadership someone may or may not have, this is not anything that he personally could have avoided without micro management


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Jul 2012)

edited by Mod for unsubstantiated reports of illegal activity.

Nemo88,

I don't care where your political sensibilities lay, but you won't put the Site Owner in jeopardy by libeling a public figure on this forum.

You've just run yourself to the top of the ladder.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> How is the F-35 the "Priciest boondoggle in Canadian history"? This project, aside from the $$$ spent on the procurement process and R & D, hasn't cost Canada a cent, as there is no money yet spent.
> 
> Sounds like Liberal/NDP driving at a story, even if the facts don't necessarily align.
> 
> I do concur with Mr. Campbell that Mr MacKay should be looking to sack the CDS or at the very least the CAS or the procurement staff for the errors and oversights in the procurement of this kit.  It's easy to say that as the boss he should be accountable, but in reality, he's a civvie, and his advisers at all levels said that this was the answer and withheld details.  No matter how much leadership someone may or may not have, this is not anything that he personally could have avoided without micro management



With the mess the Liberals put us in with the Cyclones, they have no leg to stand on in the F35 arguement.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With the mess the Liberals put us in with the Cyclones, they have no leg to stand on in the F35 arguement.



Which was "Phase 2" of 'How not to replace a Sea King', after "Phase 1" - giving Augusta Westland $ 1/2 Billion for the EH-101 cancellation...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2012)

Everybody always forgets the $800M that had already been spent on the programme up to the point of cancellation - a total of $1.3B to buy no helicopters.

Huge damage was done to the Canadian aerospace industry as well, and a couple of thousand jobs were lost.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jul 2012)

Alright gosh darn it I will vote for the Progressive Conservative Party.
Oops, we don't have a "Progressive Conservative Party"


----------



## jeffb (8 Jul 2012)

No, but there is the Progressive Canadian Party... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Canadian_Party

Close enough right?


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> edited by Mod for unsubstantiated reports of illegal activity.
> 
> Nemo88,
> 
> ...




It's not hearsay now. These are the last two MP's thrown out. Think about all they had to do to be thrown out. Now Bev Oda was also thrown out. I won't bother saying what the gossip that I believe to be true is. Make your own conclusions.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Rahim+Jaffer+sought+secret+info+about+Canadian+satellite/6948597/story.html

ormer Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer sought secret information about Canadian military satellite technology after meeting with state-owned Chinese technology companies in China in 2010, according to a document filed in an Ottawa courthouse Tuesday by private investigator Derek Snowdy.

Snowdy is being sued by Jaffer's wife, Helena Guergis, for defamation, along with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party of Canada and a number of senior officials who were involved with Guergis's expulsion from the Conservative caucus in April 2010 in the "busty hookers" scandal.

Guergis resigned from cabinet and was expelled from the Conservative caucus the day after the Toronto Star reported that Jaffer and business associates had partied with escorts at a pricey Toronto restaurant the night that Jaffer was charged with cocaine possession.

In Ottawa Wednesday, lawyers for Harper and Guy Giorno, his former chief of staff, will argue Guergis's lawsuit ought to be thrown out of court.

Snowdy's statement of defence casts light on Jaffer's February 2010 trip to China, which Jaffer made with Hai Shiene Chen, a Chinese Canadian businessman.

Chen "had many connections and ties to state-owned technology companies in the Peoples Republic of China and that had been anxious to befriend Jaffer and Guergis according to email exchanges," Snowdy writes.

During the trip, Snowdy writes, Jaffer "was hosted and socialized by Chen's associates representing state-owned technology companies."

On his return, Jaffer wrote to David Pierce, then the director of parliamentary affairs to then industry minister Tony Clement, with detailed questions about the Canadian government's "long-term space policy" regarding Radarsat-2, a high-technology earth-observation satellite developed by MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates with more than $500 million in federal funding.

On March 16, 2010, Jaffer, using an email address belonging to Guergis's MP account, wrote that he had "a few questions on behalf of some constituents who are friends of Helena and I."

He then asks, in the email, about the government's plans for the satellite program, including its sensitive "automatic identification system," a military system used to identify vessels in Canadian waters.

"I know these are very technical questions and I have pretty much copied and pasted their request directly to you," Jaffer wrote in the email to Pierce.

In a letter to ethics commissioner Mary Dawson on April 16, 2010, after Guergis left the government, Pierce wrote that he also spoke to Jaffer on March 17 but did not pass on any information about Canada's space program.

In his statement of defence, Snowdy writes that he "understood that Guergis had used her office to assist or procure Jaffer's visa to enter China," and suggests that Jaffer may have travelled on the diplomatic passport he received as a spouse of a cabinet minister.

The Globe and Mail has previously reported that Jaffer claimed to have lost that passport when he was asked to return it following his wife's departure from cabinet.

In an interview on Tuesday, Snowdy said that he has spoken to "police and intelligence agencies with respect to a number of Mr. Jaffer's business interests and contacts," but declined to be more specific.

Snowdy, who initially came into contact with Jaffer in the course of an investigation into accused fraudster Nazim Gillani, Jaffer's former business partner, said he became aware of Jaffer's business contacts in China because Jaffer and Gillani were seeking investors.

"There were firms related to technology, aerospace and computer software and engineering," Snowdy said in an interview. "There was a small list circulated among people who were being solicited to sponsor Jaffer's diplomatic mission to China."

Former CSIS agent David Harris, said Tuesday that it would be interesting to know which "constituents" Jaffer was inquiring for.

"In light of the travel to China and the sensitivity of the technology involved, it would be very helpful for Mr. Jaffer to help Canadians to understand the complete background, including contacts made and any technology that might have been sought, as well as the specific individuals and interests that could have prompted his inquiry."

In June, 2010, CSIS director Richard Fadden warned that China was attempting to influence Canadian politicians, and former CSIS agents have publicly warned that the communist government's agents are engaged in an ongoing, multifaceted intelligence operations in Canada, driven by interest in Canadian technology and resources.

Harris said that CSIS, Canadian military intelligence and allied intelligence agencies were likely interested in Jaffer's inquiry about Radarsat-2.

"This would be a matter of extreme interest, it would seem to me, to any self-respecting security service," he said.

Contacted by telephone Tuesday, Jaffer declined to comment on the allegations in Snowdy's statement of defence. Chen could not be reached for comment.

Jaffer and Chen were among the guests at what the Toronto Star dubbed the "busty hookers" dinner at Toronto's swanky Harbour 60 restaurant on Sept. 10, 2009, where escorts were present. Later , Jaffer was arrested by Ontario Provincial Police and charged with impaired driving, speeding and possession of cocaine.

In an email the next day about the dinner to business associates, Gillani referred to a mysterious "China initiative" that Jaffer and Chen were to work on.

"As most of you may have heard, we had a rather earth-moving experience last night at dinner with Rahim Jaffer and Dr. Chen. Mr. Jaffer has opened up the Prime Minister's Office to us and as a result of that dinner he today advised me that he is just as excited as we are and joining our team seems to be the next logical step." Gillani said in an email to business associates.

Subsequent investigations by the federal ethics commissioner, lobbying commissioner and a parliamentary committee found that Jaffer sought millions in government spending for green energy projects, routinely using Guergis's email account and office to make pitches, but did not succeed in landing any contracts before she left the government.

Jaffer, who was still handing out his MP business cards, did not open up the Prime Minister's Office to anyone, government sources have repeatedly stated, although he does appear to have enjoyed privileged access to officials in ministers' offices.

Guergis has frequently complained about her ejection from cabinet and caucus, and ran unsuccessfully as an independent in the 2011 election.

On March 9, 2010, Jaffer pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving and was fined $500. The cocaine possession and impaired driving charges were dropped.

In his statement of defence, Snowdy suggests that the plea deal may have included Jaffer agreeing to give evidence against Gillani.

"Given the extent of the activity Gillani was involved in, Snowdy had information that Jaffer may have offered that information in exchange for a plea agreement to his cocaine and impaired driving charges," he writes.

Gillani is now facing allegations of fraud in front of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Jaffer cocaine case "was hijacked by the senior Crown Attorney whom pled out the case without discussing the matter with the arresting officer or the local Crown Attorney," he writes, and states that Const. Kimberley Stapleton was ordered to keep silent about the case by then-OPP commissioner Julian Fantino, who is now the minister in charge of CIDA.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Rahim+Jaffer+sought+secret+info+about+Canadian+satellite+technology+court+documents+words/6948597/story.html#ixzz20vSN4cp9


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Jul 2012)

BTW here is an excerpt from the libel provision of the criminal code.

"Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication."

I believe the rumours to be true. As true as the rumours about Jaffer and Guergis turned out to be.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> He then asks, in the email, about the government's plans for the satellite program, including its sensitive "automatic identification system," a military system used to identify vessels in Canadian waters.



 :rofl:

Now i know that i should give about *ZERO* credibility to this "news" article.

AIS is not secret. It is not a military system. It's akin to airplane transponders and is carrier by merchant ships the world over, it's use is mandated by the IMO. Every swinging joe sailing on a certain size commercial vessel has one, and the receiver to identify and display information about all the other AIS-equiped vessels around him.


Super secret eh ?

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2012)

Your article has nothing to do with Bev Oda.

Your strawman doesn't work either.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> BTW here is an excerpt from the libel provision of the criminal code.
> 
> "Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication."
> 
> I believe the rumours to be true. As true as the rumours about Jaffer and Guergis turned out to be.



Put your barrack room lawyer books away.

This is a private site. You'll abide by the rules or leave.

Smarter people than you have put the site owner in jeopardy with less.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Jul 2012)

What has happened to the site owner? I thought we still had freedom of speech in Canada. If that is not the case I would like to at least know what the actual limits are in detail.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What has happened to the site owner? I thought we still had freedom of speech in Canada. If that is not the case I would like to at least know what the actual limits are in detail.




  The limits on this privately owned site are what we decide they are.
Live with it or drift.............


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2012)

Someone once told me that Freedom of speech protects you from government recrimination for expressing yourself.  It doesn't mean you get to say what you want whereever you want to...


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I believe the rumours to be true. As true as the rumours about Jaffer and Guergis turned out to be.



A point you seem to have missed.


Just because YOU think that the rumours are true, does not make them so.  


Although you are proving yourself to be 'special'.......You are not that special.......


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Someone once told me that Freedom of speech protects you from government recrimination for expressing yourself.  It doesn't mean you get to say what you want whereever you want to...


 :goodpost:


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What has happened to the site owner? I thought we still had freedom of speech in Canada. If that is not the case I would like to at least know what the actual limits are in detail.



And you are willing to pay all of Mr. Bobbitt's legal fees if he is sued for defamation, based on statements maintained on his website, for which, no matter the originator (including you), he is legally responsible?


Get over yourself.


Feel free to start your own private internet forum to espouse your views of which rumours exist that you believe to be true...


----------

