Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'Profoundly disturbing questions that evidently remain unanswered'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, February 11, 2011 1:35pm - 72 Comments

Last December, Liberal John McKay rose on a point of privilege to assert that International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda had misled the House on the matter of KAIROS. Yesterday, the Speaker told the House he could not formally rule on the matter under the present circumstance. That did not though restrain him from commenting.

As noted earlier, the Chair reviewed all the documents available. In doing so, to fully grasp the allegations being made, particular attention was paid to the committee testimony of the minister and senior CIDA officials and to the internal CIDA document obtained through an access to information request made available to me by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The full body of material gives rise to very troubling questions. 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. In particular, the senior CIDA officials concerned must be deeply disturbed by the doctored document they have been made to appear to have signed.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • JamesHalifax

    Inserting the word "not" onto a printed document isn't necessarily the result of nefarious activity.

    Though, I must admit, in this case I'm not convinced……

    • McC_

      you're kidding? inserting the word "not" onto a printed document and then claiming that it was there all along (i.e. that a memo was recommending something "not" be approved, where it actually recommended that something be approved at the time of signing) is certainly inappropriate.

    • tiggerdosh

      Hey James, you cannot be serious. This is a legal document not a letter between friends. Any legal document ( and this is one) if there are insertions, deletions, etc.. must be initialized at least. And since this is the government and a matter of importance, don't tell me that they could not have run of a new print with the word Not in the text. Or are you going to say that the government is going Green and saving paper? Sorry, this stinks!

      • JamesHalifax

        Go down a ways tiggerdosh……..I state exactly that below.

        They need to be initialized.

        As far as smell is concerned, you'll note that I actually agree with you.

        • Jenn_

          James, can you give an example of when this wouldn't be nefarious activity? Beyond the initializing thing, which quite obviously makes it something very innocent. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't off the top of my head think of an acceptable, innocent example for inserting a word (that isn't initialized).

    • SunshineCoaster

      Inserting the word "not" onto a printed document after someone else has signed it is necessarily the result of nefarious activity.

  • Emily

    'Doctored documents'

    How we have fallen…..
    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/02/11/kairo…

    • Stewart_Smith

      good link, Oda should be fired for malpractice if that is the extent of her doctoring skills

      • danby

        If Bev Oda keeps her job, you really have to wonder just what Helena Geurgis did to not only lose her position, but to also be expelled from caucus.

  • Rochelle

    It seems like the Minister got off on a technicality. There does seem to be something fishy behind this.

  • dave

    I'm more disturbed by the reality that the Minister in charge of the program also has taken the position that she's no apparent recollection of whether or not she signed off on the document as well. Which raises the spectre of someone on staff or outside her office simply grabbing the sig-stamp and processing their own position on the funding.

    Mind you, "pretend we never saw the document" is also a standard Conservative fallback position soooo…

    • SteveJobs

      Adding text that completely inverts the intent of a document is not a "correction".

  • tedbetts

    "Honourable thing to do" is not how I would chose to articulate it.

    "Responsible thing to do" in a democracy that is supposed to be rooted in ministerial responsibility would be though. In fact, it should have happened immediately.

    • captcold

      ministerial responsibility hasn't existed since confederation. our government exists as bullshxx

    • gottabesaid

      I don't disagree.

      The honourable thing would be for the author of the 'NOT' to come forward.

      • lgarvin

        I think the author of that "NOT" could be – and should be – convicted of forgery.

        I don't know if there is a legal term for it, but it seems to me that the folks who signed this document before it was altered had their signatures forged when the document was altered. At least that's how I would approach it if it were my signature on the document.

        Have the police been called in?

        Did anyone ask for a police investigation?. We're talking about a forged document concerning millions of dollars, that's fraud on a large scale.

        • gottabesaid

          I'm not a lawyer, not even an unfrozen caveman lawyer, but I think the applicable Criminal Code section (366, Sec. 2) might just be this one:

          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.

          I don't think it's fraud because no money was stolen or misappropriated.

  • tobyornotoby

    When we will be firing someone from Bev Oda's office to show she is accountable for this as Minister?

    • Mike T.

      Have to decide first whether it hurts or benefits them if said fallperson is called before committee.

    • Michel Leblanc

      One of her political aides, Keith Fountain, left her office under somewhat mysterious circumstances almost exactly a year ago. According to press reports at the time, he had been accused by aid groups of threatening them with defunding unless they were "more careful" about their advocacy work (i.e. didn't criticize Israel). Apart from threatening NGOs, Fountain's portfolio included CIDA's work in the Middle East. Fountain was a Tory candidate in 2006, worked in the prime minister's office for a few years after that, and was sent over to CIDA to be Harper's eyes and ears.

    • gottabesaid

      I think you're mistaken. This government has been very clear that ministers are responsible for their departments. That's why department staffers can't appear at committees, remember. So, if anybody is going to be fired, it should be Oda. Of course, if the PM doesn't fire her, well, that means nothing bad happened. It was all just a big misunderstanding/left-wing media concoction.

      • tobyornotoby

        Sorry gbs, I don't know the emoticon for tongue-in cheek or I would have used it.

        • gottabesaid

          I think I picked up the tongue-in-cheekness… didn't I? Hmm.

  • JamesHalifax

    McC asked:
    “you’re kidding, inserting the word “not” onto a printed document and then claiming that it was there all along (i.e. that a memo was recommending something “not” be approved, where it actually recommended that something be approved at the time of signing) is certainly inappropriate.”

    McC, if someone initialled the pen and ink correction it is perfectly valid. I’ve always had problems with this, because as you point out, it is easy to manipulate and difficult to prove the original intent.

    That being said, all of this could have been avoided simply by saying “NO” to funding KAIROS. No need for screwing around. If the Governemnt of the day doesn’t want to fund a special interest group…so be it.

    • McC_

      but no one initialled the "not" (see the cbc link provided by Emily above). As for your last sentence, this wasn't about funding "special interest groups" this was about funding overseas development assistance projects. Many years ago Canada stopped delivering most of its overseas programming itself, and instead contributes funding to multilateral institutions (ICRC, IMF, WB, UN agencies, etc.) and to NGOs and other partners who deliver programs that are deemed to meet government objectives and rules (with fairly strict audit and reporting standards). In this case Kairos was applying for renewed funding to continue their programming overseas on behalf of CIDA, the Agency recommended it be approved, the Minister said no (well within her right), and then the Government said in public and in Parliament that the funding was denied because it was not recommended/did not meet program requirements. It is these latter actions that are the issue here, not whether or not this or any other NGO should be delivering CIDA programming.

      • JamesHalifax

        McC noted:
        "this was about funding overseas development assistance projects"

        I know that McC…however, by foisting the responsibility off on NGO's……we have cases of money being misspent on dubious issues. (such as funding to extremists)

        • McC_

          what???? "we have cases of money being misspent on dubious issues. (such as funding to extremists)"??? shirley not under this government!

        • Jan

          James,as is his usual tact – attempts to drag us off the topic.

    • dave

      McC, if someone initialled the pen and ink correction it is perfectly valid.

      In my experience as an executor to my dads will, the accepted legal practice for doing so is to have all the signatories do so though and, preferably, in the process of signing off on the document. So, the "someone" should've been the three people involved and, given CIDA's apparent position and current stance on what's happened, you would've had problems getting those initials from the other end.

      • McC_

        that would seem a sensible course of action.

    • TimesArrow

      You miss the point. The govt [ or someone] doesn't want to be seen saying no to Kairos, it appears someone wants us to believe Kairos decided to say not all on its little ownsome.

    • Al O'Wishes

      McC, if someone initialled the pen and ink correction it is perfectly valid.

      Yes it is. However, that was NOT done, and the addition was put in AFTER the other two signatories signed. On top of that, the original signatories were not informed of the edit (which is rather major, considering it completely reverses the original position.)

      In many cases in private companies, this is called fraud and is often punished with dismissal.

      • TimesArrow

        Ah cum on! It only mostly reverses the intent of the document.[sarc on...testing]

    • tobyornotoby

      This isn't core funding, it's project funding based on stated objectives the government has for delivering development aid to other countries. The government isn't funding the "special interest group" it's funding the project the group carries out with specific deliverables on a schedule under a contribution agreement. Typically groups find matching funding, the cost of developing the proposal and negotiating with the government can't be included, and all expenses are itemized and with zero margin to pay for the overhead unless specifically related to the project. Except for their ability to raise funds from other sources the groups lose money every time they get project funding.

      The fact is the government, including this one, makes commitments to support other countries, and these groups are essentially contractors completing jobs the government wanted doing, but without any of the ability to build in a margin a private sector contractor would get from a tender process.

    • wellwell

      James "shill" Halifax – I hope you didn't mind that one-word insertion.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    I hope the minister and most of the staff who would have had knowledge of this action get off without formal reprimand while some poor schmuck plays the scapegoat.

    I want consistency from my government.

    • tobyornotoby

      awesome, better than my attempt at the same sentiment above!

  • Walter E. Goh

    You said it yourself Big Daddy, we live in a state of mendacity.

  • MostlyCivil

    Coming soon to a Hansard near you:

    "Mr. Speaker:
    The government would like to offer our sincerest apologies to the leader of the opposition for various attacks on his patriotism and support of Canadian troops…

    NOT!"

    *laughter, applause*

  • Withheld

    I work in Quality. Doing this violates the very principle of Good Documentation Practices, and, where I work is ILLEGAL. Without proper initial and dating by all signatories on the edit, it is invalid.

    • Jan

      But this is the Fedral government where things seem to be done more casually.

    • Robaert Lawrence

      The Speaker should have siad thie document as showwith the NOT makes the NOT invalit because it is not initialed.
      The document stand approved as originally indicated. This is one for the cour

      R.L.S.

  • SteveJobs

    I'm sorry, you'll have to be a bit clearer.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      When you typed your comment, did you type the letters "not" before typing the letters "acorrection", or is it possible that someone hacked the comment system and added the word "not" only after you "signed" your post?

      • SteveJobs

        Ah, sorry, my brain seems to be running a little sluggishly today…

  • danby

    An oldie, but a goodie. The link is here

    From the article:

    "This is about more than the specific sordid details of this specific scandal," he said to cheers. "It's about accountability.'

    "When I become prime minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government," he said. "That is my commitment to you."

    "Cleaning up government begins at the top," he added, accusing Prime Minister Paul Martin of deflecting blame whenever the taint of scandal touches him.

    "Under Paul Martin's watch the waste and mismanagement and corruption has continued."

    • Thwim

      I love how it says the Accountability Act promised "real protection for whistleblowers"

  • prescott

    This is beyond 'profoundly disturbing'. Blow this story up and make sure ALL Canadians are informed of this manipulation and outright deception that is carried out every day seemingly by this most untransparent and most dishonest of governments.

  • tobyornotoby

    I thnink Steve meant to say "Yes the word "not" was not there (unless it was)."

    • Halo_Override

      None of the involved parties will confirm that they typed the word "not" into the comment that SteveJobs may or may not have written.

  • TimesArrow

    They're out looking for the guy who plagiarized Harper's Iraq speech so they can hire and fire him again.

  • John

    The real story is not Oda; Im sure she was clueless.

    The real story is who went behind closed doors and accused Kairos of anti-semitism? Because someone had to in order for Minister Kenney to boast about it in Israel.

    • Jan

      No doubt the same person(s) who objected to the monies paid out by Rights and Democracy to certain groups.

      • prescott

        Paul Wells' article in the current Macleans addresses the absolute ineptitude and destruction of this good agency which Harper and his sleazy minions have dismantled and made ineffective. This, to me, is one of the most blatant corruptions of this current regime. The sooner Harper and his sleaze are gone, the better.

  • JpM

    For a government that ran the "Accountability" line for so long, it is absolutely unacceptable for a Government Minister to claim that she "may or may not have written" her own signature. Moreover, the revelation of this document makes it abundantly clear that the Minister lied to Parliament and to the Canadian public about the reasons for KAIROS' funding being cut, and for that she deserves to be fired.

  • Stewart_Smith

    I think everyone is missing the big picture here. We are rapidly approaching that horrid time of the year when virtually every adult Canadian is forced to answer personal questions to the government under threat of going to JAIL. (Tony please save us!)
    I for one will be looking to use this new government approved method of correcting an official document.

  • Jenn_

    You make a good point. Who doesn't remember one word written in pen that completely reverses an entire typewritten document? Who doesn't remember because you'd ask about one word written in pen that completely reverses an entire typewritten document before you signed the thing, wouldn't you? Obviously, this is one of those documents Ms Oda didn't sign or she'd remember it. Or she did sign it and either wrote the NOT in herself, or is lying her face off protecting someone. Either way, she's protecting someone, because she has to know the keeper of the signature stamp.

    Or its even worse than we imagined, she has no idea how many people have a stamp of her signature, she never questions documents put forward for signature, etc.

  • Selena

    Stuff like this coming from the band of Dear Leader's sychophants is no longer a surprise. They'll probably find some "assistant" to throw under the bus.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Well, here's an answer to one question!

    Turns out that the word "not" was inserted into that document after it had been signed at the direction of Bev Oda. At least, if Bev Oda is to be believed.

  • TimesArrow

    Maybe it's not too late to dust the original papers; see if Kenney's fingerprints are anywhere on there.

  • dave

    Probably easier to just bring in a handwriting recognition team and start looking for matches amongst those with access. I'm pretty sure doctoring federal documents is a criminal offence.

  • TimesArrow

    I was joking. I don't doubt your solution is more realistic.

  • jdinvan

    So a special interest group receives signed recommendation to be allocated funds, then is warned to not anger the PMO by disagreeing with him, promptly finds their funding denied, and the document recommending their being approved is doctored to now say "NOT recommended"?

    That's a little more than profoundly disturbing, its a start for evidence of politcal extortion of the most transparent kind.

  • McC_

    please see my comment above, this was nota memo about "funding special interest groups."

  • tedbetts

    The Conservatives are still in DefCon (DefendConservatives) mode 1 so far on this.

    But forging and doctoring documents under someone else's signature is seriously wrong so look out for it to go quickly to DefCon5 and don't be surprised to see them jump all the way to DefCon6.

    DefCon1 – If an issue arises, say it's a non story
    DefCon2 – If the issue won’t go away, then blame the media
    DefCon3 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame the Liberals
    DefCon4 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a bureaucrat or provincial premier
    DefCon5 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a staffer
    DefCon6 – If the issue still won’t go away, then start talking about Adscam, coalitions, broken GST promises and the NEP

  • Jan

    They're probably winding up Poilievre for this mission as we speak.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Congratulations on your thirty-eighth "DefCon" post. Given the extent of the repetition, you seem to think that this particular rhetorical variation is especially persuasive.

  • EeeOar

    Come on CR, surely you would admit that the CPC's handling of this issue has been pretty ham-handed.

    Get the CPC to reduce the number of cock-ups like this one and you reduce the number of opportunities that Ted has to attach the DefCon list.

  • wellwell

    Like your repeated assertion that Ignatieff has been away too long, and therefore is not Canadian enough, to be Prime Minister. You did it again in a recent post.

  • Jan

    The Def Con Response may have started out as a joke but it is now an accurate description of the Cons SOP.

Previous

Next

From Macleans