Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document

[Scotty]

However, even if we accept the alteration occurred when the document was signed, that doesn't change the critical fact that Oda mislead the House as to who had made the alteration, and further had insinuated that CIDA was behind the decision, when in fact it the Minister herself who had done it. An inappropriate procedural screw-up is one thing, a Minister lying to the House is quite another. To my mind, the document's history is completely irrelevant.

Yes, that was kind of my opinion, as well. If she's to be censured it should be for getting caught in a lie. I am a bit world-weary about the self righteousness and mock outrage of the opposition, though, as I consider all politicians to be routine and repeated liars.

Bev Oda has never struck me as a particularly sophisticated and intellectual woman. I can easily see her seeing the form, seeing no place to say 'no' and simply inserting 'no' before signing it, thinking that was the most appropriate thing to do. I can then see her getting flustered when asked about it, and denying it before she had much chance to work out what she ought to be doing (read consult with her spin doctor).

[ToadBrother]

Yes, that was kind of my opinion, as well. If she's to be censured it should be for getting caught in a lie. I am a bit world-weary about the self righteousness and mock outrage of the opposition, though, as I consider all politicians to be routine and repeated liars.

Whether the outrage is mock or not, lying to Parliament, particularly by a Minister of the Crown, is about as big a no-no as one can do. Our constitution grants the Crown a rather large amount of power, but checks that power with the ability of Parliament to demand anything and everything from government at its pleasure. If this was Bev Oda, I probably wouldn't give that much of a damn. She's a lightweight minister in a relatively obscure portfolio. The problem is that this is not the first case of this kind of behavior. There is a clear pattern of behavior to Tory Ministers, in particular since the Afghan prison scandal broke, of attempting to shield information from Parliament, of attempting to make a case for some sort of executive privilege, which simply does not exist in our government. Parliament is supreme over government, and part of that means that no Minister can be permitted to mislead the House without some sort of repercussions. In Oda's case, if Harper won't do his job and remove her from Cabinet himself, then, whether you think it's self-righteous or not, our system of government demands that Parliament must assure that the government recognizes that there are truly no closed doors, and no room or right for ministers to dissemble, evade or outright lie.

Bev Oda has never struck me as a particularly sophisticated and intellectual woman. I can easily see her seeing the form, seeing no place to say 'no' and simply inserting 'no' before signing it, thinking that was the most appropriate thing to do. I can then see her getting flustered when asked about it, and denying it before she had much chance to work out what she ought to be doing (read consult with her spin doctor).

That might be a reasonable explanation if she had turned around in the days following the first statements and corrected the matter. The problem was that she didn't, and thus claiming that she was simply flustered becomes a far less likely explanation. In fact, she did not fess up until after the Speaker's ruling.

[ToadBrother]

See the thing is that there is just accusations without much substance. What if Bev Oda is innocent in all this. Perhaps she approved the money but was over ruled by someone above her and is why she is being defended by the PM.

Then she has a duty to report the facts to the House. Her real boss at the end of the day is Parliament, not the Prime Minister.

I think it would be easier if she would just apologize to the House and then have the PM saying she'll be sanctioned then move on. End of story. Why they want to drag this out is beyond me frankly.

It would be easier, perhaps, but the PM seems bound and determined to defend her, because he keeps trying to invent this notion of executive privilege out of thin air. Our system government has a core tenet, that Parliament's power over Government is absolute.

[ToadBrother]

I basically never agree with anything Hebert ever says as she is so far to the left it's insane. However it isn't a bad commentary.

It's pretty much a reflection of what everyone outside the Tory caucus is saying, that the Prime Minister has an obligation as the head of government to assure that his Ministers behave in an ethical, responsible fashion. Ignore for the moment that we are talking about the Conservative government. Imagine yourself for a moment as the CEO of a company who has made someone a manager of a department. An oddly altered document appears and the Board calls you and the manager in to explain the alteration. The manager dissembles, claims no knowledge, effectively blames his subordinates, and does so a number of times before finally admitting that he himself had altered the document. What do you suppose the Board would expect you as CEO to do? What should the Board do if you, as CEO, refused not only to punish the manager, but in fact defended the manager's conduct?

To me it would be much better for the PM to say he's going to look into it and report back to the House, in say a week or so, with his findings.

Well, that's basically what the Government did when the Opposition tabled their motion yesterday. But the facts are hardly secret, and Oda has basically completed the narrative by admitting that she had in fact signed the document. But if the government believes that a week can change the complexion of it, then so be it. The Speaker has given them that opportunity.

His current behavior doesn't do much for attempting to appear as transparent as possible. It looks like he's trying to hide something which brings the Tories integrity into question. That's enough to turn off some voters.

The problem is that it isn't just his current behavior. It's been the style of leadership that he's been practicing at least since the Afghan prison scandal broke. In fact, this particular incident closely mirrors last years long form census debacle in many respects, with a Minister dissembling on the nature of a policy change and try to finger civil servants instead of owning up to the fact that it was a political decision. We have seen what appears to be a habitual disregard for Parliament and even for the ethical behavior of Ministers of the Crown. I'll accept that to a certain degree this is because it is a minority government and the Opposition is just waiting around the corner for the Big Scandal that can bring down the government (that's no different than Harper's time in Opposition with the Paul Martin government), but whatever the reason, it appears that Harper's management style or his lack of ethical or adequate ministers is creating these crises. You would think he'd be grinding any Minister to grist who was stepping out of line in such a situation, instead he seems to be encouraging ministers to flaunt Parliament. In perhaps a pure political sense that's some sort of a strategy, but it shows an extraordinary contempt for our institutions, and to my mind, suggests that he is not a fit man to be Prime Minister.

However if he is correct then he looks very Prime Ministerial indeed. Time will tell, as always.

Correct in what regard? That Oda's previous testimony was all a dream?

[cybercoma]

Durham looks solidly Conservative so I doubt she'll lose her seat.

It was solidly Liberal during Chretien's reign.

[madmax]

Bev Oda has never struck me as a particularly sophisticated and intellectual woman. I can easily see her seeing the form, seeing no place to say 'no' and simply inserting 'no' before signing it, thinking that was the most appropriate thing to do. I can then see her getting flustered when asked about it, and denying it before she had much chance to work out what she ought to be doing (read consult with her spin doctor).

Doesn't sound like she is fit to be an MP, but perhaps she is fit enough to be a Conservative MP.

[cybercoma]

However, even if we accept the alteration occurred when the document was signed, that doesn't change the critical fact that Oda mislead the House as to who had made the alteration, and further had insinuated that CIDA was behind the decision, when in fact it the Minister herself who had done it. An inappropriate procedural screw-up is one thing, a Minister lying to the House is quite another. To my mind, the document's history is completely irrelevant.

This is fair and while in my opinion she most certainly ought to be punished if it is the case that she "mislead the House" and "insuated that CIDA was behind the decision", I must say I do to some extent feel sympathy for her situation. She must have panicked when she realized what happened and how serious it was, leading her to twist the truth up to try to make the situation look better. On the other hand, that's just too bad. She's not only an MP, but a cabinet minister. She should be held to the highest ethical standards in those roles.

[capricorn]

Furthermore, I fully suspect the PMO was behind it. Why would she go back and forge a document she had previously approved unless she was directed? Furthermore, changing expert opinion from CIDA, I'd imagine, would save the trouble they had with the census - in that the experts actually approved our cut this time.

Claiming the PMO is behind all this is debatable, given the following facts.

Oda's signature on the CIDA memo is date stamped Friday November 27, 2009. (It has not been established whether she signed it or a "signature arm", as it's called, was used to apply the signature. There are reports she was out of country at the time. We do know that for a fact that Oda did make the decision that "not" be inserted.

On Monday November 30, 2009, Kairos is advised by CIDA officials that the funding request has been turned down. Not surprising that bureaucrats would wait for the Monday to call Kairos.

- On November 30, we received a call from CIDA informing us that our 2009-2013 program proposal had been rejected and that KAIROS would no longer be receiving funding from CIDA. We asked for an explanation and were informed that our program did not fit CIDA’s priorities. This was the last day of an extension to our current proposal. No written explanation was provided.

http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/who-we-are/cida-funding-cuts/

On the surface it does not appear that the "not" was inserted AFTER Oda signed the letter. Therefore Oda had made up her mind on the funding request BEFORE she signed the memo.

In any case, I hope the Speaker refers the matter to a House Committee so that the facts can be established in an atmosphere devoid of rants and howls of outrage from the usual suspects.

[Mr.Canada]

Pm Harper is defiant because he's daring the m to pull the plug and go to the polls. The Tories have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The Liberals and the NDP have the most to lose and Harper knows it. It isn't like the Liberals will win an election any time soon and Harper's playing to that. Harper knows that if the Liberals and NDP split the left vote he has a majority. The right/centre-right vote isn't going anywhere and he is picking up the centre vote as well in some ridings.

The longer Harper waits before an election the better a chance there is for a total Liberal meltdown, as there's already massive infighting going on in that party. The NDP is...welll quite frankly the NDP so Layton will do what he always does...attack the Liberals which plays right into Harpers hands...

[William Ashley]

Pm Harper is defiant because he's daring the m to pull the plug and go to the polls. The Tories have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The Liberals and the NDP have the most to lose and Harper knows it. It isn't like the Liberals will win an election any time soon and Harper's playing to that. Harper knows that if the Liberals and NDP split the left vote he has a majority. The right/centre-right vote isn't going anywhere and he is picking up the centre vote as well in some ridings.

The longer Harper waits before an election the better a chance there is for a total Liberal meltdown, as there's already massive infighting going on in that party. The NDP is...welll quite frankly the NDP so Layton will do what he always does...attack the Liberals which plays right into Harpers hands...

I could care less if Canadians are stupid enough to vote for Harper they deserve what they get.

It works both ways. Pull the trigger.

Edited February 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Pm Harper is defiant because he's daring the m to pull the plug and go to the polls. The Tories have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The Liberals and the NDP have the most to lose and Harper knows it. It isn't like the Liberals will win an election any time soon and Harper's playing to that. Harper knows that if the Liberals and NDP split the left vote he has a majority. The right/centre-right vote isn't going anywhere and he is picking up the centre vote as well in some ridings.

Except that a motion to find someone in contempt of Parliament is not a confidence motion, and while some theorize that the Government can make anything a confidence motion, I'd say this would be a stretch. About all he's daring is Parliament to humiliate a minister, and by extension the Prime Minister and the Tory caucus, who have steadfastly insisted, despite all the evidence, that somehow what she did was right as rain.

The longer Harper waits before an election the better a chance there is for a total Liberal meltdown, as there's already massive infighting going on in that party. The NDP is...welll quite frankly the NDP so Layton will do what he always does...attack the Liberals which plays right into Harpers hands...

I've been hearing you Tory supporters talk about the supposed Liberal meltdown for a couple of years now. It hasn't happened. They may not all be that pleased with Iggy, but all in all they know this is no time for any kind of leadership debate.

[ToadBrother]

In any case, I hope the Speaker refers the matter to a House Committee so that the facts can be established in an atmosphere devoid of rants and howls of outrage from the usual suspects.

Judging by the way Tories have behaved in committee meetings in the six or seven months, there's no reason to expect that the howling and outrage won't continue even then.

[capricorn]

Toad, it's pretty hard to beat what went on this week in Question Period. Damned if I know why I watched it in the first place.

There's a much better chance that Committee proceedings wouldn't reach my ears.

[GWiz]

Whizzer...

Do yourself a favour and put that halfwit on ignore...

You won't miss a thing...

Not even some good laughs?

People like him don't bother me...

People with single digit IQs never do...

Hey, in some 15 years on boards including the Hannity Forums I've never reported anyone to a mod...

This is the first time and only because this forum quite frankly, with all those rediculous "rules" is probably the most boring, and least fun forum I've ever been on...

If it wasn't for the few people like yourself, BC, DoP and some others that know how to have a little FUN I'd have been long gone already...

Think I'll wait till I get booted and enjoy myself until then...

BTW - CFL schedule's out, first game (4 us), Big Blue vs pussy cats...

[nicky10013]

I'm having a bit of trouble over the word "forgery". Apparently, she had scrawled "not" on a copy of the document with a magic marker.

I always thought that a forgery was an attempt to look as realistic as possible, in order to fool someone. A scrawl with a magic marker doesn't seem to meet that standard.

If I drew a Mona Lisa with crayons, would you also consider that a forgery?

And please, don't try to blow me off as some kind of Tory who can't see any fault with any CPC member. I've posted enough times that I'm NOT a Tory and what's more, I really couldn't care less what happens to Ms Oda.

You're missing the point. She didn't scribble in NOT to reverse one of her own opinions. The NOT written in the paper was to change the signed opinion of someone else. No matter how utterly stupid we think it is, it's still fraud as she's misrepresenting someone elses signed legal stance.

[madmax]

You're missing the point. She didn't scribble in NOT to reverse one of her own opinions. The NOT written in the paper was to change the signed opinion of someone else. No matter how utterly stupid we think it is, it's still fraud as she's misrepresenting someone elses signed legal stance.

Its such a simple thing to understand. Apparently Some conservatives have dropped the KIS and just kept the Stupid.

Bill already mentioned it was a stupid thing for her to do, regardless of intent.

However, If I submitted a document and then someone changed that document and portrayed it as mine..

well, thats forgery.

[scribblet]

I have read that Chris Hall on CBC said ,'it has now been revealed,that Oda was out of the country when the document was signed , it was done with an electric pen - did someone else do this'?

The opposition must know she was out of the country......

[scribblet]

from a Liberal

http://stuffoccurs.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/minister-oda-and-not-why-i-agree-with-the-minister/

[cybercoma]

from a Liberal

http://stuffoccurs.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/minister-oda-and-not-why-i-agree-with-the-minister/

Fantastic article through and through. Sheds a lot of light on the entire situation.

[ToadBrother]

Fantastic article through and through. Sheds a lot of light on the entire situation.

Except that it still deals with the wrong problem. The issue is Oda misleading Parliament, not with the history of the document. As I said, other than perhaps on a political level, the document's history is irrelevant to the matter of the Minister's breach of privilege. I just can't figure out why some people have a hard time parsing this. Oda changing or ordering changed the document in the manner done, while certainly irregular, is not the bloody problem, Oda willfully misleading Parliament on the change, that's the problem.

[ToadBrother]

You're missing the point. She didn't scribble in NOT to reverse one of her own opinions. The NOT written in the paper was to change the signed opinion of someone else. No matter how utterly stupid we think it is, it's still fraud as she's misrepresenting someone elses signed legal stance.

This is a baffling notion. These are not opinions, the document was by bureaucrats in Oda's Ministry. She is still the Minister and still reserves the right to change the decisions of her subordinates, much as with pretty much all management structures.

Again, the issue is not the document itself. We can debate all day about whether KAIROS should have or should not have received funding, but it has nothing to do with why Oda is being roasted over a slow flame now. The problem is that Oda chose to mislead on the issue of the document's history rather than simply say "I altered or had altered the document because I did not feel KAIROS should get the funding."

Do try to keep track here. KAIROS losing funding is a political issue. The Minister misleading Parliament about who altered the document and why is a Parliamentary issue. The former is an interesting political debate. The latter is a serious breach of Parliamentary Privilege.

[Guest peterb]

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.”

[Evening Star]

xpost to ToadBrother: If you go to the links to the official transcripts and read the commentary, he does challenge the notion that she was misleading Parliament though. I don't know what I think of his analysis but it does seem to complicate things.

Minister Oda is asked an Order Paper question in the house about de-funding KAIROS by Glen Pearson (L-London North Centre). The question is here. Mr. Pearson basically asks why KAIROS was de-funded if the bureaucrats thought that the request met CIDA’s priorities. Remember, CIDA’s priorities are not necessarily the government’s priorities, and Minister Oda said as much. Once the Minister decided to not fund KAIROS, it became a CIDA decision. That’s because the Minister is the boss at CIDA. It’s like, for example, if a Vice-President at RBC wants to lend $100-million to Facebook, but the President of RBC disagrees, and directs the Vice-President to NOT lend to Facebook. It then is a RBC decision to not lend to Facebook.

Having said that, don't you think it seems a bit strange that altering a signed document, even if the Minister is doing the alteration, can be standard OP for government officials?

Edited February 20, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Like, I'd question the blogger's analysis because CIDA is not a ministry. It is a government-supported agency that reports to the Ministry of International Co-operation. So "CIDA decision" would mean "a decision made by the people (bureaucrats) within the Canadian International Development Agency" to me, not "a decision made by the Minister for International Co-operation". I would refer to the latter as a "Ministry [for International Co-operation] decision".

Edited February 20, 2011 by Evening Star

[nicky10013]

This is a baffling notion. These are not opinions, the document was by bureaucrats in Oda's Ministry. She is still the Minister and still reserves the right to change the decisions of her subordinates, much as with pretty much all management structures.

Again, the issue is not the document itself. We can debate all day about whether KAIROS should have or should not have received funding, but it has nothing to do with why Oda is being roasted over a slow flame now. The problem is that Oda chose to mislead on the issue of the document's history rather than simply say "I altered or had altered the document because I did not feel KAIROS should get the funding."

Do try to keep track here. KAIROS losing funding is a political issue. The Minister misleading Parliament about who altered the document and why is a Parliamentary issue. The former is an interesting political debate. The latter is a serious breach of Parliamentary Privilege.

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.

Edited February 20, 2011 by nicky10013