Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document

[nicky10013]

Further to comment that Oda changed her story

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bev-oda-speaks-but-not-on-kairos/article1912170/

"During a committee appearance in December, Ms. Oda said she did not know who put in the word “not” on the Kairos funding proposal that had been approved by her officials. This week, she changed her story, saying that she had provided the direction for the insertion of the word."

Her answer was rather simple in that she didn't know the "who" by name which is understandable. She didn't didn't know who wrote in the word "not" - she wasn't present.

The question wasn't who was responsible for refusing the funding for Kairos because Liberals aren't smart enough to formulate a simple question and they want to run a country - forget it.

Maybe the Minister wouldn't be called "evasive" if they asked a proper question.

However to say she "changed her story" is a misrepresentation and can not stand the test of scrutiny, because back in December 2010 , at the same meeting that Oda testified at, Margaret Biggs President of CIDA told the committee, Oda was responsible for the change, and had every right to make the change, so it was established back in December Oda was responsible for rejecting the Kairos funding. Now in February her statement that "she had provided the direction for the insertion of the word" is only an acknowledgment of what was determined back in December, by the committee, and there is no change in the substance of the story or position that can be attributed to Oda.

Margaret Biggs testimony at December meeting before committee

“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.”

This is splitting hairs. Sure she doesn't know specifically which of her staff actually forged the document. She did in fact admit that she ordered it to be changed, though. It doesn't matter if she didn't do it herself or still doesn't know who did it. The fact that she ordered it to be done speaks for itself.

[a.gee]

Who are Oda's defenders trying to fool when they state the obvious that the Minister has the rights to supply or cut funding to any organization she wishes? This deference of the subject is a sign that the Government clearly believes that all Canadians lack common sense. The facts are there that point to Oda's misleading of Parliament, and the message that I get from Stephen Harper's inaction of ejecting her from caucus is that this sequence of events is probably directed by the PMO. There are more issues stemming out from this scandal, but the problem now is that she failed to come out with the truth, and she should be held accountable.

[ToadBrother]

Who are Oda's defenders trying to fool when they state the obvious that the Minister has the rights to supply or cut funding to any organization she wishes?

It's an age-old spin technique. Don't try to defend the indefensible, ignore that and defend something easy. It is a type of straw man argument. I consider it a dishonest, dishonorable technique, but this is politics, and politics doesn't exactly attract a lot of people with any sense of honest interchange.

Frankly, I'm willing to buy the argument that Oda is an intellectually-stunted halfwit who is incapable of understanding the context of questions, has not even a limited grasp of the appropriate way to amend documents or alter decisions, and just generally is a rather dense, stupid individual. Which still leads to the same point. Why would a reasonable Prime Minister put such a moron in charge of any kind of funding?

[GWiz]

It's an age-old spin technique. Don't try to defend the indefensible, ignore that and defend something easy. It is a type of straw man argument. I consider it a dishonest, dishonorable technique, but this is politics, and politics doesn't exactly attract a lot of people with any sense of honest interchange.

Frankly, I'm willing to buy the argument that Oda is an intellectually-stunted halfwit who is incapable of understanding the context of questions, has not even a limited grasp of the appropriate way to amend documents or alter decisions, and just generally is a rather dense, stupid individual. Which still leads to the same point. Why would a reasonable Prime Minister put such a moron in charge of any kind of funding?

Hmmm, all in all, VERY good point you make...

[ToadBrother]

I don't think it's baffling at all. I know that KAIROS funding is political and of course there are issues around breach of privelege. She's certainly allowed to go against the decision of her bureaucrats...my point was never to say that she couldn't. My point is the fraud lies where she altered documents. Your opinion that the worst thing here is that she breached privelege and that's fine. Forging...or directing someone to forge a federal document pertaining to funding to the tune of 6 million dollars is illegal fraud. I view that as being worse. If she had just come out and said I disagree with the heads of CIDA and I'm not going to fund this, there would've been a debate but no one would be accusing her of doing anything wrong. However, she directed one of her staff to forge a document to make it look like CIDA supported her decision. To me, that's the worst. The fact that she lied to parliament isn't shocking and makes matters worse, but the fact that she did it to begin with I think has to take precedence.

I'm not buying the fraud and forgery claims either? Shoddy record keeping, you bet, but come on. She's in charge of that bloody department. I think we can argue that she's too much the incompetent to be in charge of that department (and certainly past performance suggests Oda is one poor minister by any standard). But you would need never make these forgery claims stick. You would have to prove motive and intent, and there you would fall on your face. While her actions were irregular, they certainly were not on the face of them initially done out of a desire to deceive, after all, she's the minister, her control of funding is bequeathed to her by that fact. Fraud almost inevitably must show some measurable benefit to the one committing fraud, and I see no real benefit to a Minister, beyond that since approval or denial of funding is already in her power, there's no abuse so far as that goes.

The ill deed here is not the altering of the document. That's just bad procedure. The ill deed is, for whatever reason, not simply telling the Committee right away that she had ordered the change made. I'm sure she would have been roasted about mucking about with official government documents, probably would have been raked over the coals for denying KAIROS funding (though I actually agree with her on this one, I don't think they should get the funding, I don't think they should ever have, but I'm an evil atheist who has serious problems with religious groups being tax dollars to dole out).

The matter simply becomes one of whether her lack of clear communication on the change was intentional or unintentional and whether it was a breach of Privilege or not. The Speaker may buy that she didn't understand the nature of the questions, but I still don't see how that's a victory for the Tories because all it really means is that Oda is possibly an intellectually underpowered moron who might function reasonable well as a Tory voting machine, but shouldn't be given the keys to a ministry.

[Topaz]

I went searching for the minutes of the Dec.9th standing committee of Foreign Affairs and Internationals Development and what Oda DID say that the meeting. Read it and judge for yourself. I do believe the minister had the LAST word on this but I think she knew how Harper felt or was told about any organization at doesn't hold his ideas on Israel and so she did make the decision and it seems the "NOT" went in after it was signed. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4871931&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3

[waldo]

The ill deed here is not the altering of the document. That's just bad procedure.

has it, without spin, been definitively determined that Oda did not, in fact, initially approve and sign the document accordingly... only to, ultimately, have the decision over-ruled by Dear Leader... at which point the ^NOT^ was stoopindly applied?

[GWiz]

I'm not buying the fraud and forgery claims either? Shoddy record keeping, you bet, but come on. She's in charge of that bloody department. I think we can argue that she's too much the incompetent to be in charge of that department (and certainly past performance suggests Oda is one poor minister by any standard). But you would need never make these forgery claims stick. You would have to prove motive and intent, and there you would fall on your face. While her actions were irregular, they certainly were not on the face of them initially done out of a desire to deceive, after all, she's the minister, her control of funding is bequeathed to her by that fact. Fraud almost inevitably must show some measurable benefit to the one committing fraud, and I see no real benefit to a Minister, beyond that since approval or denial of funding is already in her power, there's no abuse so far as that goes.

The ill deed here is not the altering of the document. That's just bad procedure. The ill deed is, for whatever reason, not simply telling the Committee right away that she had ordered the change made. I'm sure she would have been roasted about mucking about with official government documents, probably would have been raked over the coals for denying KAIROS funding (though I actually agree with her on this one, I don't think they should get the funding, I don't think they should ever have, but I'm an evil atheist who has serious problems with religious groups being tax dollars to dole out).

The matter simply becomes one of whether her lack of clear communication on the change was intentional or unintentional and whether it was a breach of Privilege or not. The Speaker may buy that she didn't understand the nature of the questions, but I still don't see how that's a victory for the Tories because all it really means is that Oda is possibly an intellectually underpowered moron who might function reasonable well as a Tory voting machine, but shouldn't be given the keys to a ministry.

Well, yes and no...

Considering who KAIROS funds; In the current political climate a "frontal", OPEN, denial of funds to them could have negative political repercussions for the CONS that deny the funding...

Conversely I'm sure that Harper himself and the more extreme "right wing" members of the CPC would be against such funding as a matter of principle or for econonic or budget grounds... A bit of a "catch 22" one might say...

One could therefore reasonably conclude that all this was done "on purpose" to have "plausible deniablity" in the matter of DEFUNDING KAIROS...

Getting "caught" in this manner wasn't part of that plan...

At least that's my take on it...

[ToadBrother]

has it, without spin, been definitively determined that Oda did not, in fact, initially approve and sign the document accordingly... only to, ultimately, have the decision over-ruled by Dear Leader... at which point the ^NOT^ was stoopindly applied?

I don't really see how this line of thinking is helpful. We are never going to know whether the Prime Minister gave Oda her marching orders over this one or not. Even if Harper did, well, he's the Prime Minister, and our system has functioned for well over two hundred years under the system of executive management where the Prime Minister retains a veto over the decisions of his ministers. Certainly Harper isn't the first PM to have centralized power, that's been a trend at least since Trudeau's time. To indict Harper for that is to indict a number of PMs that went before. He certainly isn't the first PM to have ordered a decision of one his Ministers changed, either.

If we assume, that the document was altered after the fact, then the only crime I can think, and it's not even a crime, is that there are very very poor record maintenance practices in Oda's ministry, or more pointedly that Oda has little or no knowledge of appropriate ways of making records of altering decisions. In other words, that aspect of the whole case is an administrative problem, not good to be sure, but hardly in the realm of repugnant acts of evil.

[ToadBrother]

Well, yes and no...

Considering who KAIROS funds; In the current political climate a "frontal", OPEN, denial of funds to them could have negative political repercussions for the CONS that deny the funding...

Conversely I'm sure that Harper himself and the more extreme "right wing" members of the CPC would be against such funding as a matter of principle or for econonic or budget grounds... A bit of a "catch 22" one might say...

One could therefore reasonably conclude that all this was done "on purpose" to have "plausible deniablity" in the matter of DEFUNDING KAIROS...

Getting "caught" in this manner wasn't part of that plan...

At least that's my take on it...

These are all interesting speculations, and I tend towards some of them as a matter of explaining the alteration of decision and document. But as others have pointed out, if this was an act of deception it was an incredibly inept one. If this was some sort of conspiracy it was certainly one of the worst I've ever seen.

[nicky10013]

These are all interesting speculations, and I tend towards some of them as a matter of explaining the alteration of decision and document. But as others have pointed out, if this was an act of deception it was an incredibly inept one. If this was some sort of conspiracy it was certainly one of the worst I've ever seen.

You said it yourself that the woman is an incompetent so this being one of the worst conspiracies ever laid is completely reasonable.

You said it would be next to impossible to prove motive and though it would be hard to "definitively" prove it in a court of law, lets ask ourselves these questions. She does have control, so why did she feel the need to write in not? Couldn't she just have sent a letter to deny funding? Why did she sneak it in? Why did she deny doing it? Why did she feel the need to attempt to hide the opinion of her bureaucrats? The answers to all those questions point to her trying to cover up what she did.

Considering the political grief the bureaucracy has caused the government, most notably over the census where the CPC was pilloried for months by the media after ignoring the advice of the country's foremost experts, they had a decidely prudent political motive to make it look as though her top people within CIDA agreed with her.

Even if you can't prove fraud, in any company anywhere it's grounds for immediate dismissal. The fact that Harper and the entire CPC caucus have wrapped themselves around her speaks to the fact that not only is this probably close to the truth, but that the order to do it came from the PMO. Considering how reactionary the government has become even by CPC standards, it's sad to say that this isn't surprising.

Edited February 20, 2011 by nicky10013

[GWiz]

These are all interesting speculations, and I tend towards some of them as a matter of explaining the alteration of decision and document. But as others have pointed out, if this was an act of deception it was an incredibly inept one. If this was some sort of conspiracy it was certainly one of the worst I've ever seen.

Would it be the first TIME for this particular government and/or it's ministers to do something totally inept?

<by edit>

Perhaps CIDA wasn't comfortable taking the blame and that's how all this was exposed?

Edited February 20, 2011 by GWiz

[ToadBrother]

You said it yourself that the woman is an incompetent so this being one of the worst conspiracies ever laid is completely reasonable.

To be clear, I'm doing as the Tories seem to be asking and giving Oda the benefit of the doubt that she's not a shameless liar. By conceding the point, I'm agreeing there was no conspiracy to mislead Parliament, but rather one rather stupid and inadequate minister. As to whether this all came about because the PM ordered it, I haven't seen any compelling evidence, but rather compelling conjecture. But no matter how compelling the conjecture, conjecture is not evidence.

You said it would be next to impossible to prove motive and though it would be hard to "definitively" prove it in a court of law, lets ask ourselves these questions. She does have control, so why did she feel the need to write in not? Couldn't she just have sent a letter to deny funding? Why did she sneak it in? Why did she deny doing it? Why did she feel the need to attempt to hide the opinion of her bureaucrats? The answers to all those questions point to her trying to cover up what she did.

Let's examine the Tories' defense of Oda. They say she's the Minister, she is not bound by the decisions of her staff. I think you, I and everyone else on the planet can agree to that. They say she did just that, but in sloppy fashion. Sloppy doesn't seem an adequate adjective, but I think we can all agree that whether there was some deeper conspiracy or not, that it was a rather botched job. So far so good. But if we go to the explanations for why she didn't just tell Parliament, well now things will part ways depending on whether you're a Tory or, well, everyone else. If you're a Tory, the explanation is to blame those asking the questions for not asking the right one, or as I see it, the Minister is some sort of ignoramus or suffers some horrible brain disease that permits her only to see the most semantically rigid interpretation of a question, so you basically have to ask completely direct questions, and not in any way ask more general questions. I'm perfectly content to accept this explanation, that the Minister may in fact suffer some horrible malfunction of her neurological processes that somehow hampers her capacity to fully understand that the questions being asked required expansive answers. In accepting that explanation, I in fact pity the Minister, and hope that somehow there is some sort of help that could be given her, that she could some day be capable of conversing with other human beings beyond the level of a three year old child, and in fact applaud the Prime Minister for having chosen this mentally challenged individual, and perhaps I should openly condemn the Opposition for harassing someone of clearly retarded and retrograde thought processes, accusing her of dishonesty. I hope the Speaker rules that she did not intend to mislead the House, but rather she can became a sort of example to other mentally challenged people that they can aspire to become Ministers in future Tory governments too.

Anyways, as you were saying...

Considering the political grief the bureaucracy has caused the government, most notably over the census where the CPC was pilloried for months by the media after ignoring the advice of the country's foremost experts, they had a decidely prudent political motive to make it look as though her top people within CIDA agreed with her.

Even if you can't prove fraud, in any company anywhere it's grounds for immediate dismissal. The fact that Harper and the entire CPC caucus have wrapped themselves around her speaks to the fact that not only is this probably close to the truth, but that the order to do it came from the PMO. Considering how reactionary the government has become even by CPC standards, it's sad to say that this isn't surprising.

I doubt a company would, on the grounds of a botched amendment to a document, fire a manager. Certainly it would go on record, and judging by Oda's previous lack of performance (she has been accused of being detached and unaware before), and eventually one would hope that the Prime Minister would take note and would move her back to the back benches where she probably could safely be relied upon to say "yay" or "nay" to votes in the House.

I'm only being some facetious with this, because I would love for this not to have been an ethical breach and ultimately a breach of privilege. You'll find that I agree with you that, when coupled with other problems this government has with trying to disguise political decisions as bureaucratic decisions, the Oda affair seems to fit squarely within a pattern of conduct.

But we cannot discount the fact that Oda may in fact be of borderline intelligence, in which case I hope we all applaud the Prime Minister for his proactive approach to the treatment of the mentally challenged.

[Topaz]

Any minister has the right to give money to whom they choose but sometimes the "why" is another matter. In Bev Oda case not giving the money because they didn't fit the quota and the reason for that is found in the following article as was said by Jason Kenney. http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/NGO_Monitor.html

[scribblet]

The more I read the more it seems to be nothing but spin, no substance, the accusations and hyperbole by the opposition is now nothing but malice. There is absolutely no evidence that it was changed on the PM's orders that is sheer speculation.

We now know that Oda was out of town when the decision was made so the denial of funding (Not) was added by staffers, therefore Oda was truthful in saying she didn't know who had done it - she wasn't there to see it.

[ToadBrother]

The more I read the more it seems to be nothing but spin, no substance, the accusations and hyperbole by the opposition is now nothing but malice. There is absolutely no evidence that it was changed on the PM's orders that is sheer speculation.

We now know that Oda was out of town when the decision was made so the denial of funding (Not) was added by staffers, therefore Oda was truthful in saying she didn't know who had done it - she wasn't there to see it.

Then she could have simply said "I ordered it, but am not sure when or by whom it was done." She didn't. She mislead Parliament.

Or, alternatively, she has some sort of mental disability that does not allow her to understand that questions have scope.

[GWiz]

Any minister has the right to give money to whom they choose but sometimes the "why" is another matter. In Bev Oda case not giving the money because they didn't fit the quota and the reason for that is found in the following article as was said by Jason Kenney. http://www.canpalnet-ottawa.org/NGO_Monitor.html

That's a really sad statement about how the Harper Government operates even if it's only remotely true...

It certainly fits in with everything coming from Harper re world affairs and Israel, including the events in Egypt which overthrew Mubarak...

Having said that how KAIROS can be seen as being "anti-Israel" escapes me totally...

- KAIROS unites eleven churches and religious organizations in faithful action for ecological justice and human rights. -

On the other hand defunding KAIROS would seem a rather stupid move in Canada's political climate...

With the way Harper spends money like a drunken sailor to do something like this makes absolutely no sense other than the reasoning I gave in my earlier post...

An EXTREME right wing agenda would seem to be at play here...

[jbg]

Why would a reasonable Prime Minister put such a moron in charge of any kind of funding?

Didn't she once have a more important portfolio?

[jbg]

Any minister has the right to give money to whom they choose but sometimes the "why" is another matter.

Her own money, yes.

[ToadBrother]

Didn't she once have a more important portfolio?

Minister of Heritage and also Status of Women, both jobs she was by all accounts at best mediocre in. Her history as a Minister suggests a person lacking in any stellar talents, which is odd because she was a broadcast executive and a commissioner of the CRTC. Her pre-politics resume seems to suggest an entirely different person than the quiet and apparently quite ineffectucal, uninformed Minister we find before us. Perhaps Harper just orders most of his Ministers to keep their heads down and do what they're told, I dunno. Bizarre situation, but I can't really see how Harper can keep her around any longer.

[cybercoma]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, or if anyone read the article. However, Gerald Caplan over at the Globe & Mail is shouting at the top of his lungs "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEV ODA!" In fact, he points out that "Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the governments own". I had no idea about this and judging by the discourse here, not many other people did either. Meanwhile, as Caplan points out, Ignatieff is busy trying to get Bev Oda fired, rather than bring Canadians' attention to this disturbing break in a 60-year historical consensus on funding. Canadians should be pissed and not because Oda lied.

Read the article here.

Edited February 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[William Ashley]

I find it strange she doesn't know who has access to her signature stamp.

A corporate seal is generally something you want to protect. Yet another "security" failure on the part of the government. To not know 1. Who she authorized to sign for her (sort of required for a contract to be legal - including transfer of rights of attorney.

2. Not knowing who was in the office or who (which person was authorized)

Basically it invalidates the legality of the document - meaning that KAIROS wasn't "NOT" approved funding. The funding determination wasn't legal.

The whole premise of unfunding a "democracy watch" organization is antithemic (antithetic) to the Harperite government - a government that clearly doesn't support democracy. It is somewhat ironic this "global organization" is far more badly needed in Canada than the uncertain foreign world.

Just more lies, illegal activity, and corruption from the Harperites.

OH DEMOCRACY THEIR MAJORITY COALITION IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC AND COUPE - THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS ARN'T REPRESENTATIVE OF DEMOCRACY - YADA YADA. MY MANDATE AS THE MINORITY LEADER IN THE HOUSE etc.. etc.. lets overule the "independent" organizations - and plant "our partisan" people into those institutions so we can be an open and "accountable" government. BUT WE WON'T OBLIDGE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM PARLIAMENT, etc.. etc.. yada yada..

and now this such as "CYBER WAR" stomping, and well I don't know who uses my stamps to confirm or not comfirm multi million dollar grants.

ok there... I have absolutely no confidence in that government - especially when it is spending hundreds of billions of dollars (they arn't keeping track of who is moving the money)

And the fact she hasn't asked the simple question - who stamped that? - were "they" authorized to stamp it, where is this authorization document? who was it sent to? etc.. etc.. or is this just a " well the aides do everything for us, we just pose for the camera etc.. etc... we arn't even allowed to open our own mail etc.. etc.. ) anyone who attempts to communicate with ministers regularly will probably find out who the penmen are in their offices - rarely if ever do you get the minister to respond directly to you. - and even then now I am left to wonder --- was it just a stamp or did someone "sign" with Oda's name, I've even communicated with Oda in a previous ministry so I'm left wondering if it was her or an aid. When I get a letter signed by someone I sort of expect them to have acknowledged the letter. Now I'm left to wonder, if she really has any idea - or the reasons for claiming no awareness of her office operations.

Not knowing what is going on in your office or lying to parliament about non secret or classified information is grounds for removing someone as a minister on a basis of incompetence. I'm not saying anything is the case cause of the Ministerial Firewall.. but it is the rationality of the situation.

Edited February 21, 2011 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

Most of don't appear to know as much as we think we do about ministerial procedures etc. The minister does not personally sign all documents requiring her signatures, aides sign them as happened with this document.

As Oda said:"As for that orphaned word "not," Oda informed the House: "My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding."

Clumsily handled maybe, but not the major issue the opposition is making it.

[waldo]

Clumsily handled maybe, but not the major issue the opposition is making it.

no biggee, hey?

That is exactly what happened. Check the Hansard. She lied, period.

See, I HAVE read the transcripts. I'm wondering if those who are claiming that the lied actually have.

"doctored", flat out "doctored" document... the 2 others signing the document, did not sign the ^NOT^ version of the document. The 2 others signing the document were senior CIDA officials who both recommended KAIROS receive funding, per the original un-doctored version of the document. The 2 others signing the document approving KAIROS funding were: Margaret Biggs, CIDA President & Naresh Singh, CIDA Acting Vice-President–Canadian Partnership Branch.

=>

Speaker Miliken's ruling

on the purposely “doctored” document: “Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes.”

Hansard extracts, as linked below... both showing the purposeful misleading/(lying?) commentary advising that CIDA made the decision not to approve KAIROS funding:

=> March 15:

Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

(Bev Oda)

, CPC):

CIDA thoroughly analyzed KAIROS' program proposal and determined, with regret, that it did not meet the agency's current priorities.

=> April 23:

Mr. Glen Pearson:

With regard to KAIROS, which has lost their funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) as of November 30, 2009 due to KAIROS no longer fitting CIDA priorities: (a) what are the CIDA priorities that did not fit well with the priorities of KAIROS;

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.

[Shwa]

I don't know if it has been mentioned, or if anyone read the article. However, Gerald Caplan over at the Globe & Mail is shouting at the top of his lungs "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEV ODA!" In fact, he points out that "Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own". I had no idea about this and judging by the discourse here, not many other people did either. Meanwhile, as Caplan points out, Ignatieff is busy trying to get Bev Oda fired, rather than bring Canadians' attention to this disturbing break in a 60-year historical consensus on funding. Canadians should be pissed and not because Oda lied.

Read the article here.

Yes, and this is hilarious and really shows the complete lack of political savvy that Ignatieff and his cadre are all about. No killer instinct whatsoever. He is the Inge Hammarstrom of Canadian politics.