Liberal says Oda telling the truth

[Guest peterb]

Liberal says Oda not physically present when "not" inserted but under her direction.

When Oda answered the question " who inserted the word NOT?" she said she didn't know who (name of the person) who did it and she was truthful with that answer.

If you read the following explanation, by a former Liberal ministerial aide and current Liberal party member, you will learn why her answer is consistent with the facts and circumstances.

She has also maintained from day one that it was her decision and direction to reject funding for Kairos, and most people including the President of CIDA, has without qualification stated to a parliamentary committee, it is the minister's right, prerogative, and duty to implement the will of the government.

Here is statement of former Liberal aide and current Liberal party member

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

"On the day the decision was finally made the Minister was away from her Ottawa office and was on the phone with her staff. Normally, that means all the staff (we had 12 in our office) are gathered around a table in conference call fashion. The Minister directed her staff to indicate that she disagreed with the public service and would not continue to fund KAIROS. One of those staffers (we don’t know which one) put “NOT” on the document because there was no place to disagree and then sign with the auto-pen. Standard stuff. We know there was an urgency about the decision, so sending it back to the public service to correct, and go through the process of getting signatures and dealing with some public service blowback, was not a reasonable option."

[Keepitsimple]

If there were more Liberals like this person, the Party would not be in such dire straits. It's people like this who need to reclaim the Liberal Party and once and for all, get rid of the old backroom boys. It's unfortunate that the current flock of Libs have to clutch and grab at anything they can. If the speaker looks at the facts as objectively as this person did, the blowback from picking on this poor woman would be a further kick in the pants for the Libs and NDP.....while enhancing Harper and the Conservatives for standing behind their Minister. We'll see.

[Guest peterb]

“In this case, the Minister’s decision was to reject the recommendation provided to her, and direct that CIDA not provide funding to KAI-ROS,” it read. “The Minister had reviewed the memo, made her decision not to approve the funding application, and asked her staff to follow through on it.

“The Minister was travelling out of Ottawa on the day that her staff completed the paper work to implement her decision, so they, with the Minister’s authority, applied her automated signature, which is used when required because a Minister is unable to personally sign a document, and indicated her decision on the memo by clearly indicating that she did NOT approve the funding application.”

According to the background document, the memo was then returned to the “very officials” who had sent it to Oda for a decision. Because of that, says the government, the two bureaucrats whose names were on the memo “could not have been misled” because they knew that the word “not” had been inserted.

And the Tories say Oda did not lie when asked at a Commons committee last December if she knew who inserted the word “not” on the memo, because she didn’t know which staff member was responsible.

After all Oda was not physically present to see who wrote the “not” in, as she was out of Ottawa when the “not” was inserted to follow her direction to staff to not approve the funding for Karios

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Aide+stamped+signature+funding+memo/4316862/story.html#ixzz1EXgC1dvn

[scribblet]

It sure looks like the opposition is howling at the wind as more comes out...

Tory MP Tom Lukiwski said Oda was precise in her answers when she appeared before the foreign affairs committee in December 2010 when and was questioned about the note. Maybe they just kept repeating the wrong questions because they didn't want to hear the right answers.

[ToadBrother]

It sure looks like the opposition is howling at the wind as more comes out...

Tory MP Tom Lukiwski said Oda was precise in her answers when she appeared before the foreign affairs committee in December 2010 when and was questioned about the note. Maybe they just kept repeating the wrong questions because they didn't want to hear the right answers.

Precise my ass. Either Oda is mentally challenged or she was being intentionally evasive.

[Guest peterb]

Precise my ass. Either Oda is mentally challenged or she was being intentionally evasive.

Hey Toad

At least you can no longer say that she is lying when you are confronted with the truth and the facts.

Lot of people running around with egg on their face now.

Have a good day.

[Smallc]

Hey Toad

At least you can no longer say that she is lying when you are confronted with the truth and the facts.

Actually, we don't really know that.

[ToadBrother]

Hey Toad

At least you can no longer say that she is lying when you are confronted with the truth and the facts.

Lot of people running around with egg on their face now.

Have a good day.

I guess that depends. If we go by the view that the Tories seem to be claiming that she's a moron, then no, she did not lie, she's just suffering some horrible brain damage that prevents her from understanding the context of questions.

Or alternatively, she is lying, and guys like you, for some rather sad and pathetic reason, are unwilling to admit that the Tories could potentially have a dishonest minister on their hands.

Why is it exactly that you want to defend Oda? In every portfolio she's been in, she's clearly inadequate. Or are you just a partisan robot?

[Mr.Canada]

It might be easier to trust the government and accept what the PM says as truth. He's a Christian after all, lets rally around our leader.

[ToadBrother]

It might be easier to trust the government and accept what the PM says as truth. He's a Christian after all, lets rally around our leader.

Is this some sort of leaderporn?

[myata]

Hey Toad

At least you can no longer say that she is lying when you are confronted with the truth and the facts.

Lot of people running around with egg on their face now.

Have a good day.

The truth is that rather than accept the recommendation of expert bureacrats; or else follow a standard process to modify it; or else clearly document ministerial decision to overule it; this minister / this government, ordered to misrepresent it, by something that is reminiscent of a forgery (i.e modifying signed documents without knowledge of signatories).

Everybody should judge for themselves how this measures on the scale from truth at least in some measure, to blatant falsehood and deliberate misrepresentation. As well as where it would stand with respect to any meaningful standard of transparency.

[Jack Weber]

Is this some sort of leaderporn?

It's "Dada Harper Syndrome" from Mr. Fala...

OOPS!!!

I was informed someone got offended at that precisely correct moniker...

Mr.Canada...Mr. Harper's lap dog...

[madmax]

Liberal says Oda not physically present when "not" inserted but under her direction.

HOW MANY ODA THREADS DO WE NEED? CHARLES JUST MERGED SOME LAST WEEK AND YOU START ANOTHER ONE!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[ToadBrother]

HOW MANY ODA THREADS DO WE NEED? CHARLES JUST MERGED SOME LAST WEEK AND YOU START ANOTHER ONE!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

The Tory supporters around here want to make sure that their non-version stays in play.

[Guest peterb]

What is the problem some people have the way the recommendation was rejected.

President of CIDA Margaret Biggs, who signed the Kairos document, testified before the parliamentary committee in December, Oda did nothing wrong and used her ministerial discretion and judgment to deny approval of the funding.

“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.”

So Oda instructed her staff that she was not approving the recommendation and they inserted the word "not" before the word recommend. As Ms. Biggs president of CIDA told the committee they got the message and understood it - it was sent to the minister for approval or non approval - she didn't approve it obviously when "not recommend" was on the paper . That was the minister doing her job -she had every right to refuse approval as Biggs testified so what is the problem.

To claim forgery or defacing of a document is absurd and ridiculous - that doesn't wash with anyone who has an IQ higher than their shoe size.

[ToadBrother]

What is the problem some people have the way the recommendation was rejected.

I don't have a problem with it, I have problem with Oda not simply telling Parliament that's what happened.

[Guest peterb]

At the committee meeting in December, although Oda did not give the name of the staffer who wrote in the "not" on the document in answer to the question - Who inserted the word "not" ? - because she actually was not physically present, when it was done, and therefore was unable to identify by name. At the same time, her machine generated signature was placed on the document. Her testimony has always been that all was done under her direction and recommendation.

At that same December meeting, how could anyone have left the meeting confused, whether it was Oda who made the decision to deny recommendation for approval of the funds for Karios, when the President of CIDA told the committee it was the minister Oda who was responsible. How much clearer could Ms. Beggs be when she spoke the following words to committee members and the media in December.

“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.”

For some members of the media and Liberal party to falsely claim that Oda changed her position in February will not stand up to scrutiny if her words in Hansard are examined where she stated

"I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction."

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4959259

How could anyone conclude and write that Oda changed her story or worse yet accuse her of lying? I think some opposition members and media should make a retraction and genuine apology to Ms. Oda, because there is no valid reason for them to be confused, to the extent that they demanded her resignation, and cause her all this anguish.

Fortunately Prime Minister Harper had the good sense to stand behind his persecuted minister, and not let the opposition destroy another female member of his cabinet, with unfounded charges.

[ToadBrother]

At the committee meeting in December, although Oda did not give the name of the staffer who wrote in the "not" on the document in answer to the question - Who inserted the word "not" ? - because she actually was not physically present, when it was done, and therefore was unable to identify by name. At the same time, her machine generated signature was placed on the document. Her testimony has always been that all was done under her direction and recommendation.

At that same December meeting, how could anyone have left the meeting confused, whether it was Oda who made the decision to deny recommendation for approval of the funds for Karios, when the President of CIDA told the committee it was the minister Oda who was responsible. How much clearer could Ms. Beggs be when she spoke the following words to committee members and the media in December.

“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.”

For some members of the media and Liberal party to falsely claim that Oda changed her position in February will not stand up to scrutiny if her words in Hansard are examined where she stated

"I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction."

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4959259

How could anyone conclude and write that Oda changed her story or worse yet accuse her of lying? I think some opposition members and media should make a retraction and genuine apology to Ms. Oda, because there is no valid reason for them to be confused, to the extent that they demanded her resignation, and cause her all this anguish.

Fortunately Prime Minister Harper had the good sense to stand behind his persecuted minister, and not let the opposition destroy another female member of his cabinet, with unfounded charges.

It's a delightful theory, but not one that bears scrutiny. Oda had but to say that she had ordered the document changed for all of this to have gone away (well, except maybe for the wringing of hands over KAIROS).

http://karenmock.liberal.ca/blog/facts-bev-oda-tied-nots/

Edited February 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

On February 14th, Bev Oda made an opening statement.......after the requisite back-and-forth, the Speaker ended the discussion with comments that should give you an idea of what his "ruling" will be on the supposed "breach":

Oda's Opening Statement:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding the funding application for KAIROS. I wish to clearly inform the House of the matter and clear up any misunderstandings that exist.

The CIDA officials did forward a document in which they sought approval of the recommendation for funding of the KAIROS proposal, but ultimately the decision to not provide funding was mine, as Minister of International Cooperation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, departments do make recommendations to ministers and ministers, in carrying out their responsibilities, can agree with those recommendations or, as is the case with this issue, they can disagree. In this case, the process in place requires the department to make recommendations, not to make the decision.

There was no decision taken by the department to provide funding. It was only a recommendation. It was my decision to disagree with the recommendation based on discussions with advisers. I was fully aware that my decision was not aligned with the recommendation of the department.

In the matter before you, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked you to rule on whether I intentionally or knowingly misled the House by saying it was a department decision.

At no time have I stated that the decision for funding was that of the department. I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction.

Given the way the document was formatted, allowing only for concurrence, this was the only way to reflect my decision. If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.

In conclusion, let me be clear. In the memo the department did make a recommendation to me, as the minister for funding. My decision, as the minister, did not concur with the recommendation of the department. My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding.

I have consistently taken responsibility for that decision. I have consistently informed the House of the government's aid and effectiveness agenda, stating that our government's policy is to achieve impact, making a sustainable difference in the lives of those it is intended to help. In no way have I intentionally or knowingly misled the House or the committee.

The Speaker's closing comments:

I would suggest the hon. member perhaps read it over. I think the minister did say that she instructed the “not” to be put there and then signed the document. The member can check her wording. I do not think a dispute like that is something the Speaker is going to settle.

I made no ruling that said there was a breach of privilege in this case. I said the contrary in my ruling. Hon. members can check out the words of the ruling. The minister has offered some clarification, and I think it can be taken as that. If members have other questions about it, they can ask the questions either in the committee or in question period. I am sure the minister will answer.

I think that solves the matter for the moment.

[ToadBrother]

On February 14th, Bev Oda made an opening statement.......after the requisite back-and-forth, the Speaker ended the discussion with comments that should give you an idea of what his "ruling" will be on the supposed "breach":

Oda's Opening Statement:

The Speaker's closing comments:

Clever quoting, except that you missed the critical part, which was that the Speaker could not make a finding because it had not been referred from Committee? Do you think we're all illiterate here, that the entirety of the Speaker's ruling cannot be found? Is every Tory now transformed into a shameless liar?