KAIROS Doc Is No Longer About Funding
It has become increasingly clear that for sure Bev Oda, Minister for International Cooperation, needs to resign or be fired. It has also become increasingly clear that Prime Minister Harper is going to stand behind her no matter how much subterfuge it is going to take.
We’ve learned in the last week that the ‘NOT’ which was inserted into the KAIROS document was done so on Oda’s orders. She may choose to split hairs over whether she knew who exactly picked up the pen and did so, but she had full knowledge the document was being altered. Therein lies the issue. Therein also lies a question.
The issue is that Oda knew the document had been changed and at what point. It was after the two CIDA officials had signed off. The issue is NOT if she made a decision to grant funding to KAIROS ornot. She has the right to make a decision, even if it disagrees with the recommendations of the CIDA officials. The fact she made the decision and then mislead the house and the Foreign Relations committee about the circumstances of the decision, THAT is the issue.
The very fact she had the right to make the decision, truly begs the question — why did she cover up the decision by having someone else alter the document? Why not just make the change, initial it and send it back to the original signatories so they know the finished document had been changed? Or send back a memo advising them that their recommendation had been rejected and why?
There is no reason for the lying and obfuscation that has gone on around this. Oda needs to offer up her resignation before she is found in contempt, which she is.
Harper is currently doing his best to change the channel on this. He’s trying to portray the issue as being if Oda had the authority to make a decision against the bureaucrats. Nice try Harper, that might fly with your buy any crap you throw at them support base, but it’s easily seen through. The issue is, your minister lied. I realize that doesn’t mean much to you since you twist the facts pretty regularly, but it means something to others.
It is also entirely possible Harper’s office ordered the change and Oda had to figure out how to change it without drawing a lot of attention to the change. As long as Harper stands by Oda, there is no reason for the full truth to come out. Now, should Harper give into Opposition and public demand for Oda to go, she might just let fly the whole story.
Personally, I believe the defunding of KAIROS had more to do with politics than good stewardship of public funds but, that is not the issue. The government, and in particular, Oda, had the responsibility to make a decision for whatever reason. She didn’t have either the responsibility or the right to lie to and mislead the House and a Parliamentary committee, for that she needs to pay the price.
Visit Out of the Shadows –
Related posts
- Opposition Goes After the Stalling (1)
- Time Marches on For Castro (0)
- Milliken Ruling More About Democracy Than Detainees (1)
- Ignatieff Slams MIA Prime Minister (0)
Who Altered The KAIROS Docs?
photo credit: ViaMoi
Reference Article: The Globe & Mail
One would think it would be a no brainer that when a document is produced for the signature of one or more government officials or parliamentarians, that no alterations would be made to the document along the way. Doesn’t appear to matter with this current government.
Last year CIDA denied funding for KAIROS, a group of churches doing work in developing countries. In one instance, an MP, Jason Kenny, bragged during a speech that the funding was cut off because of the groups criticism of Israel. The official story became that the group didn’t meet the funding priorities of CIDA.
Rather fishy sounding but, with this government’s secretive ways, who was to prove different. Now we learn, the funding was not initially intended to be cut off. The document circulated for signing recommended the funding continue — at least initially.
Someone, somewhere in the process, inserted the word “NOT” in handwriting. At least one of those signing the document said the word was not there when she signed. Bev Oda, the last signatory, would not answer the question when she appeared before a parliamentary committee on the matter. Her response was: “It’s like we’re on CSI or an investigative forensic thing – who’s put the ‘not’ in. I’d like to know what your issue is,” she said then. “What is your issue?”
My issue is, someone changed a government document and no one is owning up to who or why. This refusal of funding was presented as routine. If it had been, the document would have been sent back to be corrected before being signed. In an honest and transparent process, the document at minimum should have been initialled by those signing to indicate they knew of the change. The change appears without any notation or explanation.
I think Parliament, KAIROS and the people need to know, who made the change and why exactly was the funding denied? It’s more than troubling that this government appears to be growing ever more brazen when it comes to subverting document and due process. The Opposition parties need to sink their teeth into this and hold on until the truth comes out.
Visit Out of the Shadows –
Related posts
- Zytaruk Needs Help to Sue Conservatives (0)
- Where Is the Recalibration? (1)
- Playing Games With Democracy (4)
- Pardon System to be Revamped (1)
- Opposition Goes After the Stalling (1)
Liberals Take A Stand on Bill S-10
The Conservative dominated Senate has passed Bill S-10 which provides for mandatory sentencing for those convicted of having as few as six pot plants in their possession. The first of many faults with the bill is that the bill fails to distinguish between someone who has a few plants for recreational use and those who are operating a grow op. They are all going to spend at least six months in jail.
It is the jail time where the next major fault lies, it costs money to house prisoners. Money to build the prisons, maintain them and to staff them, not to mention the actual costs of care involved for the inmates. In these days of record deficits, those costs are not just federal dollars, they involve provincial costs as sentences of two years less a day are served in provincial facilities.
This bill like others the Conservatives call tough on crime bills promote a flawed approach to crime. The Americans have already tried and failed with the same approach. In the American experience, many states came close to being bankrupted by the increased costs of building and maintaining prison facilities mandated by federal legislation.
What’s that definition of in insanity?.. oh right… doing something over and over the same way in the hope it will work eventually.
Finally, after holding their noses and voting for previous pieces of legislation with increased sentencing provisions in, the Liberals have announced they are taking a stand against this bill. In addition to the financial costs which will be necessary to implement this bill there is the human costs of creating more hardened criminals out of people who have engaged in the possession of a minor amount of pot.
Like many Canadians, I want to see the worse of our society behind bars, some permanently. I want to see those who commit the heinous crimes sentenced in ways that keeps them locked up. When a person commits two murders, they should serve two life sentences, one after another with the minimum time before parole stacked accordingly. A citizen with half a dozen pot plants shouldn’t be sitting in jail for six months.
Conservatives need to realize they can’t both cut taxes and raise the costs of housing prisoners at the same time without other parts of our society suffering from cuts imposed on them to pay for their pandering to their political base. Canadians need and deserve rationale decisions on how their dollars are spent.
So, jail them all or just the worse ones? Tax cuts or more prisons? More prisons or fewer programs for law abiding citizens? What do you think?
Visit Out of the Shadows –
Related posts
- The Plot That Wasn’t (3)
- Playing Games With Democracy (4)
- Letter to Ignatieff (1)
- Forget Coalition, Someone Needs to Show Some Leadership (1)
- What is Karzai Inhaling? (1)
Get Your Meter Off My Bandwidth
Last week we saw an outpouring of consumer anger over the CRTC’s decision about internet bandwidth metering. Well actually they gave the big players like Bell Canada, Rogers and Telus the right to charge the smaller players wholesale rates about 15% less than what the big guy’s customers pay for bandwidth.
Bandwidth which costs just pennies per gigabyte and their customers are paying $2.50 and up per gigabyte if they go over their monthly allowable limit. The big guys claim that just 10% of customers go over their monthly limit and therefore that 10% should pay the freight.
If they are talking about their own customers, anyone who accepts an internet package which only gives them 25gigs of bandwidth in a month is a very light user, or they don’t realize how easy it is to rack up bandwidth use and they quickly switch to another provider rather than pay their outrageous overage charges.
I spent several years paying what I considered to be an outrageous cost of almost $60 per month for internet by satellite because that was all I could get. The provider, ExplorNet started out good when they first introduced the service into the area, then the throttling started. You’d be on the net maybe half an hour and the speed would drop to slower than dialup. When I’d complain, I’d be told it was their “fair usage policy” being activated by my ‘excessive’ bandwidth use.
How much bandwidth can I use in 30minutes for pete sake? In several online forums, I soon discovered the more likely issue. They regularly oversold their feed and then throttled clients rather than put the money into expanding the network. After all, they have a captive market when you can only get dialup or satellite.
Then the day came, I discovered I could finally get high speed. I looked at the various packages available, especially from Bell. I quickly found I’d be paying almost as much as I was on satellite for the amount of bandwidth I believed I was going to need. A Twitter friend directed me to TekSavvy.
I discovered that not only could I get a monthly 200gig bandwidth package for a very reasonable cost but when I had the need for customer service, I spoke to someone right here in Canada, not overseas somewhere. Imagine that, a reasonably priced service and I’d get to speak to a Canadian when I needed help. I soon learned, I got to speak to a friendly, helpful Canadian!
Now, I don’t use 200gig per month. I don’t even come close. I don’t spend time on YouTube, I don’t download a lot of files. I surf, I play an online game on Facebook, I do have a lot of email coming in and going out, oh and I blog. I happily paid for the package because I knew I’d not go over the limit and would not incur additional costs. Then came the ruling.
I soon received a notice from TekSavvy, my package would shrink to 25gigs a month. They provided me access to my account to see that I’d been using at most 40gigs a month. In order to continue my current activities online, I’d need to pay another $5 a month.
So, thanks to the CRTC, if the ruling goes ahead, in an era where online demand is increasing in an increasingly connected world, instead of using the resoruces as I need or want to, I will have to be constantly concerned about usage and cost. Meanwhile, our neighbours to the south enjoy pretty much unlimited access to the connected world. Only Australia will be more restricted than Canada if the ruling goes ahead.
The CRTC needs to hear loud and clear from Canadians that restricting access through allowing large companies to gouge us directly or through being able to gouge our smaller ISPs who are trying to provide legitimate competition is not in our best interest. Sign the petition and have your say.
So, should we be metering internet usage? Should the big companies be able to charge $2/gb or more for bandwidth which costs just pennies?
Visit Out of the Shadows –
Related posts
- No related posts.
We Will Remember Him
They shall grow not old, as we who are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning
We will remember them
In memory of our fallen Canadian:
Corporal Brian Pinksen – Afghanistan August 30, 2010
Always Caring — Always Canadian — Never Defeated
Support Our Troops — Wear Red on Fridays
Visit Out of the Shadows –
Related posts
- No related posts.
Unreported Crime Rate is Alarming? So’s Stockwell Day.
I watched CPAC’s feed this morning of a news conference given by Stockwell Day and Denis Lebel. Since I don’t speak French and that is all Lebel spoke in, I can’t comment on anything he said. In some ways, I came away from watching that feed wishing Day spoke anything but English and was in anyone’s government but the government of Canada.
When asked to comment on the government’s tough on crime agenda and the associated costs in among his convoluted response was a reference to first of all comparing current crime statistics to the crime rate back in the 60′s, some fourty years ago. Then he confounded just about everyone by referring to the statistic on unreported crime and how alarming they are.
Crime rates from 40 years ago? Like let’s get real, comparing rates from 10 years ago or even 20 years ago carries some weight but 40? Canada is never going to reach that Shangri-La of a crime rate that matches or is below 40 years ago. Too much has changed in the makeup of this country.
Many of those crimes have changed over that time period. Fourty years ago, a man could rape (and it was called rape then) his wife and not be charged with any criminal offense. Most of the time, that same man could beat his wife and not be charged.
Today there are more criminal offenses on the books for people to be charged with, so the rate is naturally going to be higher than fourty years ago. So why did he make that reference? Because more current statistics show that the crime rate is actually dropping in this country while the Conservative government is preparing to jail even more people as they copy the failed Republican policy from the US.
What’s the definition of insanity… oh yeah.. doing the same thing over again and again while looking for a different result.
The 40 year reference was overshadowed by the seemingly bizarre reference to the ‘rate of unreported crime’ — as David Akin said:
Later Mr Akin sent this tweet out: “My question of the day: How does one go about locking people up for crimes that no one has reported? http://bit.ly/awWzxN #Precrime” Yes, he may have something there. The Cons are going to break new ground with the criminal justice system, they are going to get those criminals before they can hurt people.
So, let’s see, the government is preparing to send more people to jail due to a so called alarming increase in unreported crime. Does that mean that not reporting a crime could become a crime?
Well assured dear reader, the government isn’t going to do that because they don’t believe in forcing people into providing information they don’t want to give, no matter how much benefit reliable information could be to the country.
See, they are doing away with the mandatory census long form because of the threat of those not wanting to do it going to jail. No one ever has gone to jail for this but let’s not let facts get in the way. So, instead of removing the threat of jail from the mandatory aspect of the long form, the government should just do away with it.
If you decide you don’t want to be forced into giving the information asked for on the still mandatory short form, the threat of jail remains. Let’s see if I get this, it’s much better to threaten to jail me for not giving a bit of information than it is to jail me for refusing to provide a lot of information? Ah right, the precrime approach, jail me quick before I do something really bad.
Day you are one scary dude. What’s scarier, he speaks on behalf of our government.
Related posts
- So Where is Your Accountability Harper? (0)
- How About Some Truth on Spending? (2)
- Harper Had That Coming (0)
- Galloway Remains Barred From Canada – sort of (0)
We Will Remember Him
They shall grow not old, as we who are left grow old
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning
We will remember them
In memory of our fallen Canadian:
Spr Brian Collier – Afghanistan July 20, 2010
Always Caring — Always Canadian — Never Defeated
Support Our Troops — Wear Red on Fridays
Related posts
- No related posts.
In Case the Liberals are Wondering…
Just so I’m transparent here, I am currently a Liberal supporter. I became one when Ignatieff became leader because I believe, notwithstanding my previous disapproval of him, that he had improved his performance and might just be a good leader for the Liberals.
In the intervening time, I have to admit, I have sure wondered about that decision. I know for certainty that Harper would never get my support, nor would Bob Rae. I am extremely unlikely to support Layton or the NDP. I have to admit to noticing that inspite his having to take time to battle with cancer these last few months, he sure manages to speak up about things Canadians are concerned about.
I want to not only hear that out of Ignatieff, I want him to mean it. In order for him to mean it, he can’t just shoot from the hip, he needs to do enough background to know he can carry through on what he’s saying.
Where was he when the cops in Toronto all but goose-stepped all over the rights of hundreds of Canadian citizens during the G20? Why did we hear the NDP calling for an inquiry but virtually nothing said from the Liberal camp? Since the NDP hold only the slimmest chance of actually forming a government in this country, does the absence of a Liberal stand on the police behaviour during the G20 indicate a Liberal government would have been okay with the same happening?
Is it more important to the Liberals to avoid an election they might not be ready for or for them to represent and defend the best interests of Canada? Why has the Liberal party allowed bad bill after bad bill pass them by and head for the Senate, including the budget bill loaded with issues which should have been dealt with by parliament separately?
A Liberal party focused on what’s good for Canada instead of what’s good for them should have stood their ground. I applaud the Liberals for finally taking a stand on opposing the abolition of the gun registry even if it did take the second time round. Course that vote hasn’t happened yet, and that stand could change. I hope not.
It’s nice Ignatieff is taking time this summer to get among the people. To give Canadians a chance to get a better idea of who is and what he’s like. Just remember, when you get back to Ottawa in the fall, it’s those same people you are supposed to be representing and looking out for.
Canadians want to see an Opposition which stands up for them. Then Liberals might find they have a chance at becoming the government.
Related posts
- Forget Coalition, Someone Needs to Show Some Leadership (0)
- The Plot That Wasn’t (3)
- Prime Minister is Not Directly Elected (0)
- Playing Games With Democracy (4)
- Letter to Ignatieff (1)
We Must Not Shrug Off Our Democratic Rights
Two weeks after the G20 summit concluded the fallout continues, and so it should. Canadians watched an unprecedented attack on our civil liberties and human rights as the result of police action during that weekend. The question is, who issued the orders which allowed this to take place with impunity?
Many Canadians remain blissfully unaware, while others are choosing to be unaware as they don’t believe what happened. Many choose to focus on the violence as justification for the mass arrests which followed the next day. The question should be: where were the police and why did they not move in to corral and stop those who were committing the violence?
All too many Canadians are choosing to ignore the facts and the politicians who should be on the hot seats are able to avoid answering to the public they are supposed to be serving.
An acquaintance of mine seems to be pretty typical of those who haven’t woke up to the assault on them that took place. When the subject came up, he immediately pointed to the violence on Saturday and said the police had to react.
When I responded by agreeing and then asking, so where were the police when this was going on? How come with an an overwhelming police presence in the downtown those individuals were able to rampage for upwards of 90 minutes. He responded blissfully that the police were told to stand back. By who I asked? He shrugged.
When I described to him the video footage I had watched on the web including the real time footage of a group eventually rounded up and arrested near the Eastern Ave detention centre early Sunday morning, his response was “they should have left when they were told to”. I described to him, again, how I watched as the group were surrounded by a ring of riot shields and met with a wall of silence when one young man asked repeatedly in which direction they could leave.
Again he shrugged, replying they shouldn’t have been there. When I suggested he should try telling that to those who were rounded for simply being on the street trying to go about their business, he gave me the same response. When I asked him when martial law was declared that would have told those people they were supposed to stay in their homes, his response was they should have used common sense and stayed away. When pointed out that those people going about their business lived there, he again shrugged.
At no point did he get it that the cornerstone of a democracy is the right to peaceful assembly and protest. He didn’t get it that it is a basic democratic right to be able to go about our daily business without fear of arrest.
The only ones who should have feared arrest were those who carried out the violence on the Saturday. They lacked fear because the police backed away from them and their rampage. Instead they went on an unconstitutional rampage against the rest of the citizens the following day.
The questions remain and Canadians should continue to push until they are answered. Who issued the orders which allowed rank and file police to disregard the constitution and human rights? Who allowed police to attack and round up citizens with impunity? Who allowed the deplorable conditions at the detention centre to occur?
Canadians have the right to know. We should not have to demand that politicians who are elected to serve us find out those answers. The refusals by the provincial and the federal governments leads to an obvious conclusion that the highest levels of authority allowed this to happen.
So, when does what happened during the G20 start to become the normal conditions under which we live start? Don’t shrug too often, it may be sooner than you think. Complacency breeds greater boldness.
Related posts
- What is Karzai Inhaling? (0)
- The Plot That Wasn’t (3)
- Prime Minister is Not Directly Elected (0)
- Playing Games With Democracy (4)
- Pakistan Signs Deal With the Devil (0)
Eco Fees — A Cash Grab by Any Name
Along with the HST coming into effect in July 1st, more Eco fees came into effect covering a wide range of products. The Eco fees are supposed to be fees charged to manufactures based on the amount of products or packaging they put into the market place. Stewardship Ontario which receives these fees claims not to be government yet they were setup by the provincial government.
If they are not government, then someone or some group is getting the money we are all being forced to pay. The manufactures are allowed to pass along the fees they are charged to the consumer in any manner they choose. At this point, the fees are appearing on our sales receipts as an added fee one which we pay — you guessed it — HST. But it’s not a tax you see, you just have to pay tax on it.
There appears to be no established standard as to how the fees are assessed and as such the consumer has zero protection from the manufacturers taking whatever they want as the cost of passing on the fee. Since it isn’t attached to the product at the point of the consumer making their selection, we don’t even have buying power to limit the fees to a minimum.
There is no incentive for a manufacturer to absorb the costs into any part of their process or even to find cheaper ways to bring their product to market by keeping the eco fee to a minimum. Those products that are being charged the fees, oh yeah, you’re supposed to recycle them. While some retailers will be accepting some of those products, the vast majority of them will be recycled through municipal waste programs which, you guessed it, our tax dollars pay for.
Stewardship Ontario claims the new fees, along with those introduced in 2008 and since will “helping ensure that these products are collected, recycled, reused or disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way. And that’s good for you, good for your families and good for the environment.” Lots of luck with that boys.
If you think for even a moment that after paying this fee at the till I’m going to make sure the product ends up in a recycling depot, you have another think coming. Why would I pay for having to separate the items from my regular garbage (that I also pay to put out) and then transport it to a recycling depot when I’ve already paid a fee at the till?
They really want to ensure that more of these items are diverted from landfills, they need to do what beer and wine producers have done for years. Convert the Eco fee to an Eco deposit, with flat fees depending on the size of the items, which can be refunded when the products are brought to a recycling depot. That way, those who don’t recycle pay for the cost of running the program.
That would be too much like providing a real incentive and returning some of the cost of the effort to the consumer. Heaven forbid the taxpayer come out even when a cash grab is more fun.
This debacle was started by the Harris Conservative government and advanced under the McGuinty Liberals. This is one more nail in the Liberals coffin in Ontario. Since I wont vote for Hudak (Mike Harris lite) I may yet have to hold my nose and vote NDP in the next election.
Related posts
- Playing Games With Democracy (3)
- One Week Left in Election Campaign (1)
- OK, Who Let the Other Harper Out of His Cage? (0)
- Mounties Influenced 2006 Election — Legally (0)
- Harper’s Election to Lose (0)
