Monday, February 21, 2011

Demanding Oda's Resignation

Sunday on CTV's Question Period, Jane Taber cited a poll that said 58% of Canadians want Bev Oda to resign. She did not provide any other details about this poll, and I've been doing google searches trying to find it because I would like to know the details. When did they do this polling, who did this polling, and was there an online component? The Globe and Mail is now running their own poll "should Bev Oda fall on her sword", really civil language from our nation's largest newspaper. Click here to register your vote.

Polls show that roughly 15% of the country is even paying attention to politics right now, but suddenly in the 1st week of an exaggerated controversy, Taber says 58% of Canadians want her to resign. Boy that sure was fast. Can somebody help me find the poll that Taber cited Sunday? Also, could her and Oliver not joke about how Bev Oda will not appear on their program. She's recovering from eye surgery. I'm sure the last thing on her mind is joining Taber under the bright lights of a studio show. The Globe and Mail has had a picture of Bev Oda wearing the protective sunglasses posted on their main politics webpage for days (where Jane Taber "sets the agenda"). Maximizing effect by drawing extra attention to the vision impaired, that's not what we would call integrity.

Stay classy Jane...


  1. Hmmmmm - I just followed the link, registered my vote and the total votes tally did not change. I went back again, thinking that it would have updated, but no, it was still the same. Do they update votes in batches?

  2. The Globe online polling is dominated by a very small hard left group. If you read the comments on the articles you could travel back in time to the glory days of PET or Jean Chretien Liberal fantasy land.

    The poll you linked had 1500 votes. I have not checked the BBM ratings but it would be safe to suggest less that 15% that are paying attention to politics pay attention to Jane or CTV's push polls.

    This is simply another witch hunt for a few weeks because the political parties in the left have nothing else to do that gains any traction.

  3. Given the misinformation that has been spewed by the MSM I'm surprised only 58% want Oda gone. Knowing what I know I would love to see a few legal documents delivered to the CEO's of these major MSM outlets informing them that they and their minions are on the hook for millions in libel.

  4. Online polls decide government policy? Only if it favours the Left, otherwise it just disappears. Standard operating procedure.

  5. I am always amazed as to why people are interested in what "Giggles" Taber has to say.

  6. The Cornwall Free News (a lefty toilet bowl)has a poll showing 82% want Bev Oda to resign. Doesn't mean a thing considering who is responding.

  7. Political Pundits condemned Minister Oda and mislead the public, fail to retract negative message after the facts.


  8. My vote did not count either in the G&M poll

  9. It seems to me that if Jane Taber doesn't live up to the reputation as 'fuel to the fire' gossiper; she has to RESIGN from her post which she is afraid to do.

    "look at me all you canadians, your country canada and positive reputation she sustains in the world means absolutely nothing to me. My main goal is to protect the liberal party of canada and no other not even you canadians. And I say, corrupt liberals and their new pals the ndp and the bloc are the best."

    This is THE exact impression we get from TABER.

  10. My vote did not register either.
    Cheers Bubba

  11. Rather like the so-called polls claiming that the majority of Canadians were opposed to making the long census voluntary instead of mandatory, when I could not find a single soul of that opinion or even that it was some kind of a national crisis. Same concerning Minister Oda. I wonder if anyone else has seen the similarity between these lefties and the radical Muslims in that both excel in manufactured outrage or creating a tempest in a teapot at the drop of a hat.

  12. Speaking of Bev Oda....of all the comments out there ,millions, Susan Delacourt uses this one in her pile on the Conservative women campaign...

    One commenter wrote "her questionable decision to present herself in public in sunglasses, all in black, smoking, as a RUSSIAN MOBSTER might."

    When did that conference call to all the media across the country, to pile on at full force, take place is my comment?

    Must be "CUSTARDS LAST STAND" for the media, before Sun TV News is aired.

  13. You'd almost think the media could "mustard up " a better plan than this grade 4 playground b.s.

  14. This was an Angus-Reid poll (I followed a link to it last night) described by them as "an online poll of Angus-Reid panelists", and supposedly weighted to eliminate biases (yeah, sure). I laughed.

  15. How about a poll to decide Giggles and Owliver resign for being disingenuous lefty Liberal t***S
    Cheers Bubba

  16. Here is the poll at and still may be open for voting. Given all the misinformation and lies out there thanks to the media Oda is doing well.

    Should the Minister of International Co-operation, Bev Oda, resign from cabinet?
    Yes 49%
    No 51%
    Click to Vote Or view results

  17. The Star guilty of distorting the truth and here is proof positive–talking-points-unfortunate-handling-of-kairos-case-not

    In this article the Star took the liberty of writing a complete distortion of the truth and fact – in other words a lie when they wrote

    “The Issue: International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda admitted in Parliament on Monday that she scrawled the word “not” into her department’s recommendation to fund church-backed charity KAIROS, reversing the decision of top officials. Having previously denied knowing who wrote it, Oda was caught in a lie. Opposition MPs and editorial boards both called for her to quit or be fired.”

    This is a moment that The Star can not be proud of, that their paper stooped so low to twist ,distort facts and the truth to discredit or destroy an innocent person.
    The Star writer wrote “Bev Oda admitted in Parliament on Monday that she scrawled the word “not” into her department’s recommendation”
    Nothing could be further from the truth and there is nothing in Ms. Oda’s statement that could be construed to come to that conclusion. I have enclosed Oda’s statement in Parliament on the Monday Feb 15 from Hansard, uncut and unedited, and there is no admission on her part that she wrote the word “not” in the document.
    Ms. Oda is owed an apology, as well as all the readers and all Canadians given that there was a concerted attack on her character at the time.
    and go to Line approx. 1515 Points of Order

    From Hansard Number 130 Monday Feb 14 2011
    Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): previous intervention
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding the funding application for KAIROS. I wish to clearly inform the House of the matter and clear up any misunderstandings that exist.

    The CIDA officials did forward a document in which they sought approval of the recommendation for funding of the KAIROS proposal, but ultimately the decision to not provide funding was mine, as Minister of International Cooperation.

    As you know, Mr. Speaker, departments do make recommendations to ministers and ministers, in carrying out their responsibilities, can agree with those recommendations or, as is the case with this issue, they can disagree. In this case, the process in place requires the department to make recommendations, not to make the decision.

    There was no decision taken by the department to provide funding. It was only a recommendation. It was my decision to disagree with the recommendation based on discussions with advisers. I was fully aware that my decision was not aligned with the recommendation of the department.

    In the matter before you, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked you to rule on whether I intentionally or knowingly misled the House by saying it was a department decision.

    At no time have I stated that the decision for funding was that of the department. I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction.

    Given the way the document was formatted, allowing only for concurrence, this was the only way to reflect my decision. If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

    continued in next post

  18. I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.

    In conclusion, let me be clear. In the memo the department did make a recommendation to me, as the minister for funding. My decision, as the minister, did not concur with the recommendation of the department. My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding.

    Oda's statemnet in the House on Monday Feb 14 cont'd

    I have consistently taken responsibility for that decision. I have consistently informed the House of the government’s aid and effectiveness agenda, stating that our government’s policy is to achieve impact, making a sustainable difference in the lives of those it is intended to help. In no way have I intentionally or knowingly misled the House or the committee.

  19. What is the problem some people have the way the recommendation was rejected.
    President of CIDA Margaret Biggs, who signed the Kairos document, testified before the parliamentary committee in December, Oda did nothing wrong and used her ministerial discretion and judgment to deny approval of the funding.

    “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,” she told the foreign affairs committee.”

    So Oda instructed her staff that she was not approving the recommendation and they inserted the word "not" before the word recommend. As Ms. Biggs president of CIDA told the committee they got the message and understood it - it was sent to the minister for approval or non approval - she didn't approve it obviously when "not recommend" was on the paper . That was the minister doing her job -she had every right to refuse approval as Biggs testified so what is the problem.
    To claim forgery or defacing of a document is absurd and ridiculous - that doesn't wash with anyone who has an IQ higher than their shoe size.