Bev Oda's Office Caught Forging Document

[Keepitsimple]

Sometimes you have to take a step back to get a clearer prespective:

...........

“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,” said House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken.

It’s true that I’m shocked and concerned, but not about the insertion of the word “not” on a document that revoked the funding for the anti-Israeli organization Kairos. No, I’m shocked and concerned that it actually requires the unilateral oversight of the minister herself to stop the government from needlessly and wastefully funding organizations that have little to no benefit for Canadians.

What surprises me is that people get riled over cutting off $7 million in federal aid to an insignificant and obscure church with clear and unequivocal political biases.

I can only shake my head that it’s come to this. Did Bev Oda really feel the only way to remove funding from Kairos was to overrule her department? And if so, what does this tell us about the difficulty of dismantling the welfare state? When cutting just one organization from the taxpayer trough requires this kind of ministerial interference and prompts this level of public outrage, it is demonstrative of our entrenched culture of entitlement.

Shocked and concerned? Yes, that CIDA had signed off on continuing to fund this blatantly partisan organization despite clear evidence it had become vocal in “Israeli apartheid” rhetoric and “buycott” activism. It goes to show that the governmental Leviathan is so riddled with tiny suckerfish like Kairos that it doesn’t even know how to begin to identify the waste. It’s the reason that Tamil aid fronts in Canada were able to fund the Tigers in Sri Lanka for so many years.

..................

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/15/adrian-macnair-the-curious-case-of-bev-oda-and-the-noteworthy-not/

[Moonbox]

I can't really agree with you here. Yes, she got it right, but she didn't have to fudge the documents. I can't even begin to understand why she did. She'd probably have been applauded for the decision itself. Why did she have to be underhanded about it? I already don't trust the government enough.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

Three cheers for the conservatives on this thread who rightfully recognize Oda's behavior as inappropriate. Jeers for the one (?) who does not.

[madmax]

I can't really agree with you here. Yes, she got it right, but she didn't have to fudge the documents. I can't even begin to understand why she did. She'd probably have been applauded for the decision itself. Why did she have to be underhanded about it? I already don't trust the government enough.

When you change a document, its not "fudged".

Its Forged.

There is a huge distinction. Oda is not fit for public service, yet I believe this incompetent person will get relected.

Ironically, with spin doctors having little to say, cause this is difficult to spin.

They are going to hide behind, "she did the right thing, if wrong" bullshit.

No, she forged a document.

Her office could have denied the request, regardless of the recommendation.

Instead she choose to change the recommendation.

Its a deceitful act.

But I am sure its ok with Cons.

[DrGreenthumb]

Are you out of your mind? A government minister has comitted fraud and forgery, and you applaud her? There is no end to Conservative hypocricy. She altered a document AFTER it was signed changing the meaning of the document. She should be criminally charged and prosecuted. Like usual however the Cons will choose not to be tough on their own crimes. Don't ever write this woman a cheque, when it goes through it might have a few extra zeros added on to the ammount.

[madmax]

Conservatives are caught flat footed on this. It will take time for the Spin Doctors to get their talking points out. Lots of stuff is going to get floated, until they find the message that works.

[DrGreenthumb]

This issue will have traction with some people in the religious communities in the west. A lot of Christian churches have been working with Kairos for a long time. Our pastor talked about disapointment with the government when they defunded it, and I am sure we will be hearing about this document forgery in church on Sunday. Combined with the church's public opposition to Harper's prison agenda, the Cons risk having their usual supporters stay home on election day.

[waldo]

Sometimes you have to take a step back to get a clearer prespective:

in a booster club move to control the message, Simple trots out a new thread... apparently, discussing Oda's duplicitous actions in the other currently active thread, (the one that includes "Caught Forging Document")... just won't do! Booster is, as booster does...

[capricorn]

Wring your hands. Kairos should be defunded...should not be defunded...oh me...oh my!

I chuckled when I read this Pliny. I had noticed it took fully 2 months before Minister Oda applied her signature to the (de) funding document. Fodder for speculation. Hmmm.

The best solution would be to fund them now to help with the cause of "social justice" then crush them later as being unscientific and get them some real "help". Yes...yes....for now they are a useful tool in the drive for social justice...they can be defunded later - out of economic necessity, of course...nothing personal or political, ya know.

Considering that Kairos' anti-Israel stance is at odds with Harper's policy vis-a-vis Israel, I don't think it would have been wise or advisable for Oda to approve this $7M grant. You can bet such an inconsistency would have been exploited by the Government's critics and denouncers.

It’s true that I’m shocked and concerned, but not about the insertion of the word “not” on a document that revoked the funding for the anti-Israeli organization Kairos. No, I’m shocked and concerned that it actually requires the unilateral oversight of the minister herself to stop the government from needlessly and wastefully funding organizations that have little to no benefit for Canadians.

What surprises me is that people get riled over cutting off $7 million in federal aid to an insignificant and obscure church with clear and unequivocal political biases.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/15/adrian-macnair-the-curious-case-of-bev-oda-and-the-noteworthy-not/

Over and above this political reality, what will resonate with many Canadians is that the Treasury has saved $7M, and they will be looking for more of the same.

Why would CIDA approve the funding? Is it a hotbed of liberal bureaucrats perhaps?

The 64 thousand dollar question.

Actually, my personal experience tells me that bureaucrats often operate blindly and repeat the same steps over and over, year after year, again according to established practices, without much analysis of the fallout of their decisions. "It's just the way we've always done things." Mind you, that's a good cover in itself for the high level bureaucrats involved to proclaim they are not anti-Harper/Conservative.

I would add that a by-product of the Opposition's very public outrage and resulting wide media coverage will only increase the number of taxpayers approving de-funding Kairos.

[capricorn]

I don't entirely disagree with the defunding either, because it chaps my butt to see religious groups managing taxpayers money, but the buck-passing and (habitual) lying about it bugs me even worse.

Me too. The opposition is right to request that Oda's actions be examined to determine if Parliamentary rules have been breached. If this was a Liberal Minister, I would ask no less.

[cybercoma]

For some reason, I don't think this is what is meant by Responsible Government.

[waldo]

The opposition is right to request that Oda's actions be examined

excellent... certainly, perjury and forgery would seem to be actionable offenses - hey?

[Evening Star]

I don't entirely disagree with the defunding either, because it chaps my butt to see religious groups managing taxpayers money, but the buck-passing and (habitual) lying about it bugs me even worse.

I actually agree here but then it should be official policy not to fund religious groups. And I would have a bigger problem with e.g. the ON government funding Catholic schools.

Maybe you're right, Wild Bill. Both are cases of politicians abusing their position unethically but maybe the sponsorship scandal was worse.

[Wild Bill]

Three cheers for the conservatives on this thread who rightfully recognize Oda's behavior as inappropriate. Jeers for the one (?) who does not.

I hope you didn't include me in your tally, Michael! For about the zillionth time, I'm NOT a conservative!

I'm more a classic Liberal and very much a populist. That last label is enough to put me outside of ANY category being bandied about on this board!

[PIK]

Mean while the cons are going up in the polls,39%. So what if a MP says something stupid or bev decides to say no to a religous group, people are realizing it is alot better then the lies and the stealing the libs do. Just listening to the libs and see the same old guys running it, people know the libs have not changed or learned from their past mistakes, they just want back in.

[Keepitsimple]

I've already posted a reply in the other thread where I didn't agree with the process at all. I find it hard to defend. It was sloppy and unprofessional. It was her right to over-ride the recommendation but surely, there could have been a better process - like a formal letter declining their recommendation. I'd be curious to know if she immediately told the two bureaucrats that she had declined their recommendation. If she did, then I could forgive this transgression almost completely - but then expect that the process would be changed. If she didn't, then it's still her right but it's very poor management. But it was not "doctoring" or "forging". The end result is that she made the right decision - and that's the point of this particular thread......and how hard it actually is to stop the funding freeloading.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Saipan]

Does that mean she'll become Ambassador to Denmark, like Gugliani?

Liberals are real funny. They called for resignation of Guergis, and soon as she was out Liberals cried foul.

They never know whether they are coming or going.

[Wild Bill]

Mean while the cons are going up in the polls,39%. So what if a MP says something stupid or bev decides to say no to a religous group, people are realizing it is alot better then the lies and the stealing the libs do. Just listening to the libs and see the same old guys running it, people know the libs have not changed or learned from their past mistakes, they just want back in.

You may have put your finger on it, PIK! I swear, many people are CRAVING an alternative to the Liberals but the Liberal Party just doesn't show enough of a change from the old, corrupt crew that we booted out!

This might not be entirely fair. There may indeed have been more changes than we on the outside can see. Still, politics is all about perception and the perception is that the Liberals are "same old, same old". Even their present leader, Ignatieff, is just another version of the old "philosopher king" we've seen so many times before. The backroom boys still appear to be the same bunch. We can't tell for sure, since they're never mentioned! To an ordinary voter, that in itself is grounds for suspicion. If the gang was cleared out we'd expect the Liberals to have shouted it to the rooftops to try to cast off the old blames and look like something new! In this case, no news is not good news.

No, it still seems it's all about THEM and not US! They don't really have enough time left to change this perception under their current leader. They'll just have to do the best they can and hope to find someone more charismatic to lead them into victory NEXT time!

It's a bit early for polls to mean much but if Harper is indeed heading for a majority that could be a very good thing for the Liberals! Losing ground will be just the impetus needed to sweep out and reform (I LOVE that word!) the Liberal Party and truly look like a new and brighter alternative! Harper will then be the incumbent and Canadians easily tire of incumbents. As I said, I think a lot of people are getting tired NOW! It's just that they still don't have an attractive alternative!

[Moonbox]

An even specialer sort of intellect to think that the reference was a comparison between Egypt and Bev Oda.

Well you brought it up in a Bev Oda thread so reason would dictate you were relating them somehow....

The reference was to Twitter and it's ability to inform and give issues immediate traction.

Ah I see. Does what Paulie D had for breakfest gain immediate traction because it goes on Twitter?

Unexciting news is still unexciting news. Twitter is just an outlet for it. You're a real champion of logical fallacy. Keep up the good work Shwa.

[waldo]

please... please... exercise your claims toward ministerial exception - hey, Simple?

Canadian Criminal Code:

Criminal breach of trust

336. Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Forgery

366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent

(a-) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or

(b-) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.

Making false document

(2) Making a false document includes

(a-) altering a genuine document in any material part;

(b-) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or

(c-) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.

[scribblet]

Yes, she should step down if she's found in contempt, but we should look at what's behind it as well.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/15/adrian-macnair-the-curious-case-of-bev-oda-and-the-noteworthy-not/#ixzz1E3QMDzLR

It’s true that I’m shocked and concerned, but not about the insertion of the word “not” on a document that revoked the funding for the anti-Israeli organization Kairos. No, I’m shocked and concerned that it actually requires the unilateral oversight of the minister herself to stop the government from needlessly and wastefully funding organizations that have little to no benefit for Canadians.

What surprises me is that people get riled over cutting off $7 million in federal aid to an insignificant and obscure church with clear and unequivocal political biases.

------

Shocked and concerned? Yes, that CIDA had signed off on continuing to fund this blatantly partisan organization despite clear evidence it had become vocal in “Israeli apartheid” rhetoric and “buycott” activism. It goes to show that the governmental Leviathan is so riddled with tiny suckerfish like Kairos that it doesn’t even know how to begin to identify the waste. It’s the reason that Tamil aid fronts in Canada were able to fund the Tigers in Sri Lanka for so many years.

-----

“In particular, the senior CIDA officials concerned must be deeply disturbed by the doctored document they have been made to appear to have signed,” Milliken said in the House of Commons.

Though Oda maintains her inclusion of the word “not” in the memo was necessary because there was no other space for the minister to indicate her rejection of the recommendations of her department, her earlier explanations made it sound as though the decision for the cuts had been departmental. I can understand bureaucrats being upset that Oda’s change made it appear they had approved a decision they had actually opposed. In this respect the criticisms of Oda are justified. In addition, her earlier claim that she had no idea who altered the document suggests she deliberately lied to MPs and might now be found in contempt.

some deeper reading is in order if any one really cares

http://afewfigs.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/lefties-in-a-knot-about-a-naughty-not/

Pretty damning stuff! However, when you peruse the minutes of the Standing Committee that delved into the matter (for an hour and a half, roughly two months ago), it appears there might be a reasonable explanation for this so-called ‘tampering’:

Ms. Margaret Biggs:

Yes, 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.

I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice*, which is her prerogative.

*Emphasis mine

It seems to me the real problem had already been acknowledged and that a change in the format of the memo was needed to solve that conundrum. In the mean time, the remedy ie. inserting the ‘not’, was chosen as a corrective measure, albeit a very clumsy one. (Reading the transcript, I believe had the ‘not’ been initialed, it would have passed muster just fine.)

And Ms Biggs took great pains to point out that she wasn’t assuming any kind of malfeasance herself.

Edited February 15, 2011 by scribblet

[waldo]

hey scribbler... did the document's other signers, sign the "NOT" or the "NOT NOT" version?

[scribblet]

Mean while the cons are going up in the polls,39%. So what if a MP says something stupid or bev decides to say no to a religous group, people are realizing it is alot better then the lies and the stealing the libs do. Just listening to the libs and see the same old guys running it, people know the libs have not changed or learned from their past mistakes, they just want back in.

Agreed, she did the right thing by refusing the funding, too bad she had to do what she did, for which she will pay.

IMO the voters are a little more discerning than the hyper-partisan hyperbolic leftwingers.

[William Ashley]

where is the RCMP - that is called fraud.

Fraud

s. 380 CCC.

Fraud

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars

Edited February 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[waldo]

oh let me count the ways the booster club defends the duplicitous Oda... but, but, but... the Libs!... lefty KAIROS!... pro-Palestinian KAIROS!... anti-Israeli KAIROS!... it's only a "beltway issue" - nobody cares!... CIDA, a hotbed of liberal bureaucrats!... Bev Oda speaks to the diversity of Harper's cabinet!... fiscal conservatism!... blah, blah, blah!