Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document

[William Ashley]

Also it brings back the lie - her saying she didn't know who signed it, that is an "omission", she could have stated my aides were instructed to stamp my signature on it by myself. etc..

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/181683

Edited February 21, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

"Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document"

Whose document was it?

[GWiz]

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.

Wanna buy a T-shirt from KAIROS?

Will this whole issue "matter" if the writ is dropped this spring? Naaaaa!

Does this whole matter fill the opposition's quivers with a whole LOT of arrows -

Lying to Parliament -

secretive Government -

defunding NGOs in General -

defunding environmental proponent groups-

defunding native rights groups -

defunding CHRISTIAN based groups -

slapping 80% or almost 25 Million Canadians in the face -

add any I missed -

for a spring election? Naaaaa!

[GWiz]

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.

No worries, the writ hasn't been dropped yet and Canadians aren't "tuned in" yet so why "blow your load" now?

I wouldn't... Leave that to the NDP... It'll still be there when you need it and it can make a REAL difference...

[Saipan]

I wonder how much of our tax money was lost or wasted, vs. Sponsorgate and other Liberal pet projects.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder how much of our tax money was lost or wasted, vs. Sponsorgate and other Liberal pet projects.

And I wonder how it is that your parents failed to teach you the basic moral principle that two wrongs do not make a right.

[GWiz]

And I wonder how it is that your parents failed to teach you the basic moral principle that two wrongs do not make a right.

Me thinks somebody is "looosing it" big TIME (and I don't mean just the arguments)...

My sig line kinda says it all about "those kind" of people, eh...

[Shwa]

No worries, the writ hasn't been dropped yet and Canadians aren't "tuned in" yet so why "blow your load" now?

I wouldn't... Leave that to the NDP... It'll still be there when you need it and it can make a REAL difference...

One would hope so, but Igantieff et al could have really driven the knife in deep with this one and decided to meekly persue Oda in Parliament instead. Which is sort of like a rubber knife. With no blade and no will to wield it.

The issue has traction in the media now, but will it play with the same effectiveness in an attack ad in a few months? I dunno. Trudeau and Chretien would have gutted the Tories over this. Perhaps Iggy is a little more gentlemanly; sensitive and a heck of alot more hopeful.

[ToadBrother]

One would hope so, but Igantieff et al could have really driven the knife in deep with this one and decided to meekly persue Oda in Parliament instead. Which is sort of like a rubber knife. With no blade and no will to wield it.

The issue has traction in the media now, but will it play with the same effectiveness in an attack ad in a few months? I dunno. Trudeau and Chretien would have gutted the Tories over this. Perhaps Iggy is a little more gentlemanly; sensitive and a heck of alot more hopeful.

Well, if we've learned one thing over the last couple of years, Iggy seems to lose his courage when push comes to shove. He's had the Tories over a barrel before and backed off.

[cybercoma]

One would hope so, but Igantieff et al could have really driven the knife in deep with this one and decided to meekly persue Oda in Parliament instead. Which is sort of like a rubber knife. With no blade and no will to wield it.

The issue has traction in the media now, but will it play with the same effectiveness in an attack ad in a few months? I dunno. Trudeau and Chretien would have gutted the Tories over this. Perhaps Iggy is a little more gentlemanly; sensitive and a heck of alot more hopeful.

We can't even stay on point here that for the first time in history CIDA has denied funding. As a staunch atheist, my personal view is that religious organizations like KAIROS should not receive a single cent of tax-payers money. If that is why they were denied funding, in order to maintain a secular state, then they should simply say that. Of course, this will entirely alienate the Conservative base. No Conservative will admit to that.

What bothers me more about the situation is that in 60 years, Caplan claims they have not once ever denied funding. Ignatieff does not want to chase after that bone because he may want to keep that avenue open for his party down the road. Although Layton likely will never become Prime Minister, he has been all too silent on the denial of international development funding for the first time, especially considering their platform.

Make no mistake about this. Bev Oda is the "fall gal" for a situation that was never supposed to see the light of day. Perhaps I'm cooking up a conspiracy theory here, but it's the only thing that ties the ends together for me. CIDA bureaucrats, threatened by the decision, decide to leak the document. The news initially jumps on the fact that CIDA has denied funding to KAIROS by altering a document. The House spins it so that this is about Bev Oda's "forgery", rather than about CIDA denying funding for the first time. Public reaction is deflected away from the real issue and onto Bev Oda's "deception". While that may be true and she very well may have outright lied to the House, the problem with the entire situation is that a precedent is being set to reduce Canada's role in international development.

We can all come to the table and argue one way or the other about the merits and pitfalls of spending on international aid. There's probably just as many opinions as posters. Nevertheless, if Caplan is right, then no party has ever denied funding to ID organisations, even when they had agenda opposed to the sitting government. Governments comeand go, but these organisations depend on this funding in order to carry out their work. Again, we can argue about whether we should be funding ID or organisations in particular (I personally disagree with funding a religious group like KAIROS), but a denial of funding like this has never happened.

[cybercoma]

By the bye, I welcome anyone to show me that previous govenrments have denied funding to these NGOs. Caplan states plainly, "Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the governments own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities." If this is not actually the case, then I want to know.

Edited February 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[ToadBrother]

We can all come to the table and argue one way or the other about the merits and pitfalls of spending on international aid. There's probably just as many opinions as posters. Nevertheless, if Caplan is right, then no party has ever denied funding to ID organisations, even when they had agenda opposed to the sitting government. Governments comeand go, but these organisations depend on this funding in order to carry out their work. Again, we can argue about whether we should be funding ID or organisations in particular (I personally disagree with funding a religious group like KAIROS), but a denial of funding like this has never happened.

This certainly goes towards the political aspects of what happened. In a transparent government (you know, the one the Tories promised us), such changes in long-standing policy would be explained. The Opposition would have the right to question the pending decision, the organization would have a chance to defend their record, or at least to find out why the executioner's ax was coming down on their funding.

This is the more nebulous problem, because, of course, the Minister reserves the right to end funding as it is her department to run, and the Prime Minister, as head of government, reserves the right to tell the Minister to kill the funding. The problem in this regard, whether the decision was at the Ministerial, Cabinet or Prime Ministerial level is that the Tories do not have an open, accessible government. Even the staunchest Tory supporters here basically have to invent a narrative to explain why KAIROS's funding was killed. The only "official" explanation is that Scott Kenney seems to believe, or at least told some Israelis, that KAIROS has an anti-Israeli stance. It's the only window on the decision that we have, and it's difficult to say whether it was a reflection of the government's policy, or just Kenney spouting off to please his audience.

I think the political debate is useful, because I think it behooves the government to explain substantial changes in long-standing policy. Whether I approve of KAIROS getting such funding or not (and I don't approve, by the way), I think after getting it for decades, they were at least owed the right as to an explanation, and perhaps even a chance, if accusations against them were being made by other cabinet ministers, to defend themselves. It was a cheap, cowardly way to kill KAIROS's funding, and it is one of the reasons that I suspect Oda's hand in this, because her behavior since she got into cabinet has been as an underwhelming, timid and shy minister who rarely engages either her staff or anyone else. Maybe Kenney bullied her into it, maybe the PM told her to do it, maybe she did it on her own. One thing is sure, she sure was in no hurry to tell anyone in Parliament why or by whom the funding was killed. Hardly the actions of a transparent open government, no matter how you lay the cards down.

[GWiz]

This certainly goes towards the political aspects of what happened. In a transparent government (you know, the one the Tories promised us), such changes in long-standing policy would be explained. The Opposition would have the right to question the pending decision, the organization would have a chance to defend their record, or at least to find out why the executioner's ax was coming down on their funding.

This is the more nebulous problem, because, of course, the Minister reserves the right to end funding as it is her department to run, and the Prime Minister, as head of government, reserves the right to tell the Minister to kill the funding. The problem in this regard, whether the decision was at the Ministerial, Cabinet or Prime Ministerial level is that the Tories do not have an open, accessible government. Even the staunchest Tory supporters here basically have to invent a narrative to explain why KAIROS's funding was killed. The only "official" explanation is that Scott Kenney seems to believe, or at least told some Israelis, that KAIROS has an anti-Israeli stance. It's the only window on the decision that we have, and it's difficult to say whether it was a reflection of the government's policy, or just Kenney spouting off to please his audience.

I think the political debate is useful, because I think it behooves the government to explain substantial changes in long-standing policy. Whether I approve of KAIROS getting such funding or not (and I don't approve, by the way), I think after getting it for decades, they were at least owed the right as to an explanation, and perhaps even a chance, if accusations against them were being made by other cabinet ministers, to defend themselves. It was a cheap, cowardly way to kill KAIROS's funding, and it is one of the reasons that I suspect Oda's hand in this, because her behavior since she got into cabinet has been as an underwhelming, timid and shy minister who rarely engages either her staff or anyone else. Maybe Kenney bullied her into it, maybe the PM told her to do it, maybe she did it on her own. One thing is sure, she sure was in no hurry to tell anyone in Parliament why or by whom the funding was killed. Hardly the actions of a transparent open government, no matter how you lay the cards down.

Let's all go buy a T-shirt from KAIROS!

NEWS on the CIDA cuts available there too...

Edited February 21, 2011 by GWiz

[GWiz]

"Just the facts mam, just the facts." - Sargent Friday

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/facts-bev-oda-tied-nots/

[capricorn]

Ralph Goodale's letter to the editor.

Fifteen months ago, on Mr. Harper's orders, Bev Oda terminated federal funding for a much-respected Canadian aid organization known as KAIROS.

Formed by the Catholic, Anglican, United, Lutheran, Mennonite, Presbyterian and Quaker churches – hardly a bunch of wild-eyed radicals – KAIROS had an excellent 30-year track record of helping the "poorest of the poor" around the world.

But somehow, the churches offended the touchy Mr. Harper. It was probably their passionate defence of human rights. In any event, to shut them up he cut them off, and sent the hapless Ms. Oda to do his dirty work.

Her departmental officials clearly recommended continuing support for KAIROS. When the formal government document arrived on her desk saying just that, she had it doctored – so it appeared the officials had actually recommended against KAIROS when, in fact, the opposite was true.

Ms. Oda first claimed she had no idea how that document got falsified, but a couple of weeks ago she finally had to admit it was on her explicit orders.

Tampering with documents. Misrepresenting officials. Stonewalling a Parliamentary committee. Misleading the House of Commons by failing to tell the truth. Ignoring the Speaker's demands for an explanation.

Such behaviour is plainly dishonest. But Stephen Harper is defending Bev Oda to the hilt. Why? Because she was always just following his instructions!

Her reputation is now in tatters. She'll never be trusted again, and needs to be gone.

But Canadians know the real culprit here. The architect of the Conservatives' all-pervasive "culture of deceit" which condones such dishonesty is Mr. Harper himself.

http://www.nipawinjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2990933

[GWiz]

By the bye, I welcome anyone to show me that previous govenrments have denied funding to these NGOs. Caplan states plainly, "Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government’s own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities." If this is not actually the case, then I want to know.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17967&view=findpost&p=629296

[DrGreenthumb]

Ralph Goodale's letter to the editor.

http://www.nipawinjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2990933

That is a really fantastic, well written letter.

[Shakeyhands]

Millikens rules on Oda issue.

Milliken also ruled against embattled International Aid Minister Bev Oda, who is accused of lying to Parliament with a tortured explanation of a political decision to deny funding to a long-standing charitable organization, KAIROS, that often disagreed with Conservative policies

What does Harper do now?

Link

Edited March 9, 2011 by Shakeyhands

[Shwa]

Millikens rules on Oda issue.

What does Harper do now?

Link

Here is what Minister Oda is not going to do.

Although this is curious...

When asked in the House why KAIROS was denied funding, Ms. Oda referred to the decision as "the CIDA decision" - which had some opposition politicians claiming Ms. Oda was misleading about who made the decision to deny the funding.

Only the minister had the authority to make the decision and after the decision is made, it became a CIDA decision, according to Ms. Oda.

In February, Ms. Oda apologized to the House for the lack of clarity in her earlier testimony. She made it clear that she alone made the decision not to fund the proposal, fully aware that the department recommendation was to provide funding.

Since the controversy, CIDA memos to the minister have been redesigned to create a clear space for Ms. Oda to reject department recommendations.

Huh?

[Shakeyhands]

Interesting... I think Harper needs to get rid of her, regardless if she agrees or not. For a man who won on accountability and transparency, it seems Minister Oda is the antithesis of that.

[GWiz]

That is a really fantastic, well written letter.

I agree, a very well written letter...

[scribblet]

Ralph Goodale's letter to the editor.

Such behaviour is plainly dishonest. But Stephen Harper is defending Bev Oda to the hilt. Why? Because she was always just following his instructions!

http://www.nipawinjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2990933

That is not a fact but strictly supposition and conjecture.

[capricorn]

That is not a fact but strictly supposition and conjecture.

Just to be clear scribblet, that's not my quote, that's a quote from Goodale's letter.

[Jack Weber]

Robert Fife and John Ibbitson said a few very salient things tonight on Power Play..

Fife said that this is the 3rd time in a year that the Conservatives have been found to be contemtuous of Parliament.Both he,and Ibbitson, felt that the cummulative effect of this is what the opposition will go after in a potential federal election that they both believe is inevitable now.

Fife made the great point that most of the Conservative party comes from the Reform arm and that originally they came to power,for many reasons,but one of the most obvious ones was the respect for the institutions of parliament...

Yet here are the Con's flaunting the rules and treating parliament like a minor inconvenience that they should have no trouble,and should not be questioned on,circumventing...

[capricorn]

Fife made the great point that most of the Conservative party comes from the Reform arm and that originally they came to power,for many reasons,but one of the most obvious ones was the respect for the institutions of parliament...

That might have been the main horse the Conservatives rode into town on, but I for one voted for the Conservatives in 2006 to get rid of the Liberals. I suspect many other voters did too. High and mighty words like "accountability in government" and "respect for Parliament" were great sound bytes but that's not what swayed me to switch allegiances. That said, I think the Liberals, at this moment in time anyway, are controlling the agenda and the message. A snap election might work against the Liberals because they could use more time to do more damage the further the election is pushed back.

Edited March 10, 2011 by capricorn