From here:
The revelation that cabinet minister Bev Oda ordered the doctoring of a document on foreign-aid funding “raises pretty serious concerns” about the transparency and accountability of the federal government’s government decision-making, the ecumenical justice group, Kairos, has said.
Oda, the Minister for International Cooperation, admitted on Feb. 7 that she had instructed the word “not” be inserted in a 2009 recommendation by Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) officials that approved a $7.1 million grant for Kairos. Last December, Oda told the House of Commons that when she signed the document, it had not contained the word “not.” She said that she did not add the word, nor did she know who did.
The problem that Bev Oda has is not so much the “not” but that she lied about the “not”. A bit like Bill Clinton lying about having sex with his intern, not to mention his innovative interpretation of “sex” and “is”. Bill Clinton got away with it; I doubt that Oda will – which just goes to show that it’s easier for a man to redefine “is” than a woman to redefine “not”.
Of course, if every politician who lied had to resign, we would be left without politicians – a state that might not be so bad. As it is, only politicians caught lying have to resign – other than Bill Clinton – which does have the advantage of weeding out the irredeemably stupid specimens.
Kairos likes to demand transparency but is more hesitant about adopting for itself what it wishes to thrust upon others. In December 2009 Kairos, removed the anti-Israel remarks and links from its website – and then lied about it.
So it’s one rule for a sex-crazed Clinton and a crypto-anti-Semitic, faux-Christian aid group grasping for more tax dollars, and an entirely different one for the rest of us.
Even if Oda had come clean right away, that “not” would still have been a huge problem. Other people had already signed it, approving the grant. The “not” made it look like those people had not approved the grant.
Look at it this way – if you signed a document, and somebody else altered it to make it mean the opposite of what you thought it meant, and didn’t tell you – wouldn’t you have a big problem with it?