Radio-Canada lies “all the time”, says Kenney

Sarcastic comment lands immigration minister in hot water


In the wake of the scandal surrounding Bev Oda’s apparent doctoring of a government document denying Kairos CIDA funding, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has landed himself in hot water with a controversial comment about the French language CBC. When asked by a Canadian Press reporter whether it was acceptable for Bev Oda to have doctored a document and lied to Parliament, Kenney responded “Radio-Canada, they lie all the time. Which media are you with?” He later said he was being sarcastic. Nonetheless, the comment was raised at a Commons committee meeting where Heritage Minister James Moore was present. When asked about Kenney’s comment, Moore responded, “It hasn’t been my experience with the CBC.” Moore noted that the government has never cut funding and has upheld commitments to support the CBC.

Canadian Press

Filed under:

Radio-Canada lies “all the time”, says Kenney

  1. So.. we have two options here:

    1. Kenney, when presented with a question as to whether lying to parliament is acceptable, is sarcastic as to whether the question is important to Canadians, and as such is unfit for parliament.

    2. Kenney is correct, and Mr. Moore is incompetent for not taking steps to ensure the CBC remains truthful for Canadians, and as such is unfit for his present ministry.

    • This week cannot end quickly enough for them.

  2. He actually said "I know you are but what am I?" but was misquoted by the damn lying cbc.

  3. Do these people know they're elected officials?!

    • They don't care

  4. Jason Kenney:

    Not a comedian

    • He didn't come back to amuse you.

  5. This is being blown out of proportion and is being intentionally mis-characterized. What "Radio-Canada, they lie all the time" means is that they are evil layabout unionized workers.

    It is clearly Maclean's and CP who are liars.

    • I am trying to edit out liars as the word is no fun, but IntenseDebate is kind of intense at the moment…

      They are simply mistaken.

      • When the Liberals do it (not that I can ever remember a Liberal altering a document and then lying about it before a committee) it's a hanging offense. When Harper does it, it's being blown out of proportion. Welcome to the arrogant phase of this government…the downfall creeps closer day by day.

        • When corrupt Liberals steal $40 million dollars, Liberals get away with theft. Conservatives don't steal.

          • 'Conservatives don't steal.'

            Define 'steal'. By the same measure, Tony Clement just 'stole' $50 million to pour into the tourism industry in his 'just visiting' riding. Like I said, when Liberals do it, it's stealing, when tories do it, it's smart politics. Harpercrite!

          • Really? No Canadian Conservatives have ever stolen anything? anywhere?
            In NL: "The first public signs of scandal occurred on June 21 [2006] when Premier Danny Williams unexpectedly announced that Ed Byrne, a senior member of the provincial Tories, had stepped aside as natural resources minister because of a review by the auditor general's office…. In it, the auditor general reported that Byrne had signed and submitted claims for $358,142 during the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years – or more than $326,000 above his $31,500 limit." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/audit-scandal/
            In SK: "In the years following their defeat [in 1991], 14 Conservative members of the legislature, one NDP member of the legislature, and two caucus workers were convicted of fraud and breach of trust for illegally diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from government allowances in a phony expense-claim scam" (from wiki)

      • "I am trying to edit out liars as the word is no fun, but IntenseDebate is kind of intense at the moment… "

        Are you able to add a ^NOT? That would take care of things.

  6. The scandal involving Conservative Cabinet minister Bev Oda is yet another example showing the clear need for an honesty-in-federal-politics law that applies to everyone and allows for complaints by anyone to an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency such as the federal Ethics Commissioner.

    If the Conservatives had a majority of seats in the House of Commons, they would have stopped the current parliamentary process aimed at penalizing Minister Oda for her misleading statements. And the process is tainted by partisanship because a Liberal Speaker of the House will decide if Oda is guilty, and opposition MPs will decide whether she will be penalized.

    If Minister Oda made her false statements outside of Parliament, for example during an election campaign and including some false election promises, the current process would also not be happening because MPs can only penalize misleading statements made before committees or in the House.

    In fact, many ministers and MPs from all political parties, as well as their staff and government officials and lobbyists, have in the past escaped being penalized for false statements because of majority governments, or because of where they made their statements.

    Given that dishonesty in politics is the main thing turning off voters, and a main reason for the drop in voter turnout, we clearly
    need a strong, comprehensive, independently enforced honesty law so that people involved in federal politics will no longer get away with misleading Canadians.

    Hope this helps,
    Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

  7. Jason Kenney used to take parliamentary democracy and privilege very seriously.

    I served with Jason Kenney. And Jason Kenney, you are no Jason Kenney.

  8. So what’s new? Its been acceptable to label everything out of Quebec as second class, corrupt or whatever for a while now. It causes a backlash every time, but I think that’s the idea anyway.

  9. I don't find this "joke" funny, as Kenney has shown a cavalier regard for the truth in the past.

    He claimed that he did not direct the omission of SSM from the citizenship guide. Turns out… he did.

    He claimed, when in Israel, that Kairos was defunded due to anti-semitic leanings. He came home… and claimed that he hadn't said that at all.

    He claimed that there was no interference from his office in keeping George Galloway out of Canada. Turns out… there was.

    In many ways I respect Kenney. He has been a very good immigration minister, and is probably one of the better retail politicians going.

    This current goof-up by him clearly encapsulates why I could never support a party that he leads. I know some of my Conservative brethren are pretty high on him for future leadership. I hope they reconsider for the sake of the party, and the country.

    A man who thinks like this (and is clumsy enough to be caught at it) should never achieve our highest office. There is a distinction between political dissemination, and bald-faced lying. Kenney doesn't have the proper respect for the difference.

  10. .
    This goes beyond 'lying'. Altering a document skirts the boundaries of forgery.

    Her duty was not to forge a document, but to NOT SIGN IT UNTIL UNTIL THE AUTHOR(S) ALTERED IT to her/PM's requirements.

    Forgery is a criminal offense, punishable by stiff sentences. Perhaps someone can inform me if public officials are entitled to forge documents. Are they exempt? What's the law? Personally I think if a minister forges a document, the person is even more culpable, than less, of forgery.

    • OK, I'm a little more informed on the matter, but the question seems to be closer to forgery by 'construction', but until the fully sequence of events and document-altering personnel are revealed, she will continue in a grey area.

      Similarly, embezzlement was not a crime until the framework of business made it possible.

    • She was a signatory on the document. As such she had a right to alter the document. She should have initialed the alteration to show that it was she was responsible for the alteration. Her intent was to show that she did not approve the funding; she altered the document for that purpose. She had the right to deny the funding. Did she break a law?

      • If you don't approve the funding, you don't sign the memorandum, and get in touch with the other signatories and say, "Look, I can't sign this as it is"

        You don't alter it after they've already signed it, unless they agree with the alteration.

        • If you don't approve the funding, you don't sign the memorandum, and get in touch with the other signatories and say, "Look, I can't sign this as it is"

          That somewhat characterizes the overall process as some type of negotiation – which it is not – rather than a memo with a recommendation from subordinates to the minister.

          • Fair enough. So another option is that she has her secretary type up another document which just says, "KAIROS will not receive funding", signs it, and sends it back.

            The problem is that the way she's done it, she took over the words of her subordinates. She didn't over-ride them. She took them over, and made it seem as if they were signatories to things they may not (and given the contents of the document — probably did not) agree with.

            And of course, now that I think about this, this whole line of discussion is all just about procedural screw-up, and really a distraction from the main point, which is that she lied to parliament about the course of events. When we talk about this, they win.

          • It essentially started as a procedural screwup, and it could have stayed at that minor level, that seems pretty clear.

            And then, yes, it morphed into a larger issue about misleading parliament and so on, which obviously should take precedence over the procedural issue.

            I am sympathetic to your concern about anything that shifts the discussion away from the larger issue – I just believe that by being more accurate about the procedural aspect you will give "the other side" fewer opportunities to debate the side issue, which then forces them, if they choose to respond, to try to defend the larger issue. So we probably have the same ultimate goal in mind.

  11. .
    Or another way: ordering someone to fire a gun is firing a gun.

    Ordering someone to alter a document is altering a document.

  12. Does Kenney realize that rather than saying "Minister Oda didn't lie" he actually came as close as any Tory has to admitting that she did lie (because, OF COURSE SHE DID) and further, attempted to rationalize it by claiming that it's not so bad, because other people lie too?

    It was such a strange response that it has me thinking that maybe Kenney really is the one who wrote the word "not".

  13. I agree with all the other "Liberal" posters… Quebec may be the most corrupt Province in the country, but joking that the Liberal/Separatist/ NDP coalition media whores are liars is over the top. The media have never lied and never will, they are above that type of thing. Now lets get back to the co-ordinated smear job that is "Odagate", before the Speaker rules there was no breach of trust.

    • Interesting handle you have – is it ironic?

      • Not as ironic as an Adscam party follower feigning indignation over another Liberal/Media manufactured "scandal". Where's that 40 million and more that your party stole from the taxpayer? Oh, yeah, you don't care… ironic.

  14. Conrad Black should be put in charge of the CBC.

  15. Since Jason Kenney is essentially saying that everyone lies, is it ok if I lie on my tax return? Yahooooo. Mama is going shopping…….in the US!!!!

  16. According to Mr Kenney it would appear that it is alright to lie. (They do it too!). Somewhere along these posts the ADSCAM has come up again. That was certainly not right and there was a very expensive investigation into the 're-routing' of funds and heads did roll over it. Maybe not enought heads but the investigation did what it could at the time and with the information that was revealed. Obviously it is alright to deflect criticism by directing it to another party or individual. Certainly not alright with me. When is a CPC member going to develop the guts to stand up and state that what is happening in our Parliament is not right and should be corrected? Another post stated that Conservatives do not steal. Would you not call it stealing from the forestry companies back in '06 when the Conservatives left a BILLION dollars on the table to 'settle' the softwood lumber dispute. That to me is stealing from the forestry companies and it is still not settled. There will forever be disgruntled Americans regarding these lumber sales to the US and they will continue to 'steal' money from our forestry companies. A lot of good NAFTA has done for Canadians!

  17. whats new, all politicians are liars, no big surprise there. And they wonder why more Canadians dont vote?. I see this as just more of the same old crap that has been going on for years and will never change until we hang a few of them.
    Whats the difference between CrackHeads and Politicians…. nothing I put both in the same category…Useless

  18. CBC news lies all the time. Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology or a firing.

    • I think you missed the point

  19. The CBC and public media are the only independent and reliable media we have. We should triple the funding to the CBC and cut out all advertising.
    All private media is conservative.

Sign in to comment.