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

Twenty questions

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:02am - 50 Comments

Tabatha Southey listens to Tom Lukiwski.

This week in the House, Tom Lukiwski, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, offered up a 20-Questions-rules defence of International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Ms. Oda’s failure to answer questions properly regarding the now-infamous “NOT” led House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken to rule that she may have misled the House.

“Specifically,” as Mr. Lukiwski explained it, the questions that should have been asked were, “Madam Minister, if you did not insert the word ‘not’ and you do not know who did, how did it happen? How did it occur?” If only the right question had been asked, you see, Ms. Oda would have been obliged to say “very clearly,” as no doubt she was dying to do … “That would have answered everything right there, a pretty simple follow-up question,” Mr. Lukiwski chided. What? Is he going to have to explain the rules to I Spy next?

Tags: Bev Oda, house of commons, KAIROS, Parliament, privilege, Tabatha Southey, Tom Lukiwski

More by Aaron Wherry

M_A_D_world

So a question has to have password like wording to reciprocate an answer from the intended minister?
I really hope that's a misinterpretation on my part. What party would ever accept such terms while in opposition? Stephen Harper the former Leader of the opposition would be lambasting Stephan Harper the Prime Minister quite rigorously for suggesting it.
The intent of asking for an explanation was there. This is just another smoke screen attempt to avoid answering questions that should have answers.
avr

The opposition wants, on sniffing the slightest hint of controversy, for the government to immediately volunteer all information that might aid in scandalmongering. The government wants to truthfully answer only the very specific questions being asked, on the grounds that they're not doing the opposition's (political) job for them. This is news?

Jenn_

Think about what you've said there. We have already discussed and agreed that Bev Oda was perfectly within her rights as Minister not to fund Kairos. Nobody is arguing otherwise. So, an immediate discovery that Ms. Oda had the 'not' put there would have resulted, at worst, in some snide remarks about a funny way of handling paperwork–presuming the official explanation did not have "CIDA determined the NGO no longer fit its funding priorities" included within it.

But the official explanation DID have "CIDA determined the NGO no longer fit its funding priorities" which is patently false because the two head bureaucrats of CIDA believed Kairos did fit the funding priorities. It's still okay that the Minister determines otherwise. But obviously you, yourself, believe the placement of the 'not' in the way it was done would be a scandal if brought to light, by, again obviously, making it unclear whether the 'not' was already there before the two head bureaucrats of CIDA signed the document.

Now, sure, I take your point that the opposition can't expect the government, when about to be caught out in a scandal, to lay everything out on the table. Only a most transparent and accountable government would do such a thing.

The part I don't get is your defence of the whole sorry affair.
canon70

Stephen Harper disagrees with you.

“We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Canadians elected this government to deliver on that commitment and today the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal Assent. From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact.”

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

We need Alex Trebek to host Question Period?
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

Say de secret woid, win fifty dollahs!

CAPS

Jaime Weinman would enjoy your dated cultural reference.

Leo

McKay did a poor job asking questions. A lawyer would have done a proper cross-examination. Read some of the exchanges (starts just past half way down page) and you can see all Brison, McKay Dewar, etc. want is for Oda to confess her decision came from the PMO so they can run with usual BS witch hunt.

"I said, “Madam Minister, you've just said that you signed off. You were the one–” Then I was cut off by the minister, who said, “I sign off on all of the documents”. I said, “Yes, and you were the one who wrote the 'not'”. The minister said, “I did not say I was the one who wrote the 'not'”. I asked, “Who did, then?” The minister responded, “I do not know”. I asked, “You don't know?” The minister said, “I do not know”. I stated, “That's a remarkable statement”. It is still a remarkable statement." http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat…

DerekPearce

Since when did telling the truth equal a "BS witch hunt"? Oh right, if it's Tories being pressured to be truthful, then it's a witch hunt. The fact that she "does not know" is itself BS.

Leo

So you "know" she is lying?

Jenn_

The lawyer who is now an MP for the Conservatives in my town, apparently didn't even know that when you change an already signed document, you initial said change. http://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters/article/… So I wouldn't hold lawyers out as somehow smart about this secret question guessing stuff.

He also doesn't get what the problem is, but that's another story. I guess he's just a really poor lawyer, which might be why he went into politics.

Leo

Can't say I know any "poor" lawyers, lol!!!

It is the way they all behave in these committees that bugs me. It is like a pack of attack dogs.

Jenn_

It has degenerated to that point in most committees–at least most we hear about. And I agree with how it is annoying. But if you didn't like this result, perhaps you should have put in a word when your party produced a booklet on how to make committees dysfunctional. But maybe you did.

lgarvin

"A lawyer would have done a proper cross-examination."

So Ms. Oda was not testifying as a witness, but as a defendant on trial. And you're congratulating her on the fact that she ^Just managed to avoid direct perjury because her interrogators were insufficiently skilled at catching liars.

That's one hell of a standard you've set for yourselves.

Leo

But why do you believe she is lying? Brison, McKay Dewar, etc. only want to hear her say something that they can twist into she agreed to the funding based on CIDA's approval, but then she was "told" to reverse the decision. They keep going on about Kenney's comment on KAIROS in Israel.

If you read the Embassy Mag. link below, it states she was given a letter from the PMO when she took on the job 3 years ago – to make Canadian aid more effective. Advocacy groups were no longer considered effective so KAIROS funding was cut along with some other groups. The Canadian Council for International Cooperation (a coalition of aid organizations) was also cut. Makes sense to me to cut out the "middle-men". http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/lead…

practical mom

If advocacy groups were no longer considered effective, why would CIDA spend considerable resources evaluating Kairos in the first place? Did someone forget to tell CIDA the new policy? What a waste of tax payer money and what a poor example of management.

Leo

Just a guess, but if Kairos had been getting funding for 35 years, I doubt CIDA spent considerable resources on the evaluation.
practical mom

Have you any knowledge of what the CiDA report covered? It was discussed at length in the media.

LdKitchenersOwn

as no doubt she was dying to do

She was DYING to tell them, but they just wouldn't ask the right question… it must have been SOOOOO frustrating for her.

LOL

Jenn_

No, I believe that. I expect she was quite annoyed that the Chair kept cutting off the questioners. And it has to be beyond frustrating to sit in your place while others answer for you–throwing you further under the bus with every exchange. It's just too bad she doesn't have enough integrity, or just plain backbone, to say "f__k this sh$t", and stand up anyway, in spite of her orders to the contrary.

Leo

Take the time to read the Embassy Mag. article, as it gives factual information on policy changes in International Development, including CIDA. KAIROS did not fit with the new policies as funding for advocacy groups was being cut.
http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/1076/02…
(page 8)

Jan

Guess you didn't read the editorial on CIDA on page 6…

Leo

I did read it. The editorial does not agree with the new ideology of no more funding for advocacy groups.

Keith in Brampton

The issue is not the cutting of the funding. Even the bizarre altering of the document would have only caused a mild stir and some mocking if Oda had been forthright and admitted she didn't follow proper protocol with the document trail.

The real issue is the lying and stonewalling.

The government tself has made this a much bigger issue than it should have been, simply by its refusal to be open and honest. It's a lot easier to forgive a stupid mistake openly admitted to than to forgive an elaborate scheme of lies and deception. Everyone makes mistakes; the lying, however, creates a miasma of distrust that is hard to dissipate.

Amateur Hour

"KAIROS did not fit with the new policies …"

Odd then how the two top civil servants at CIDA approved KAIROS' funding proposal, the official assessment of which noted that the group excelled at good governance and program management, benefited millions in CIDA's target groups (women and children) and also that KAIROS adjusted their program to address concerns mining companies had raised with local consular officials.

Just Joe

Links to background? I know it's hard to enlighten within the limits of blog comments–still, your insight would help understanding. Thank you in advance.

Jenn_

That was a good question. Here's an answer from Kairos.
"Do you meet the CIDA priorities introduced at the end of September 2009?
These criteria (food security, children and youth, and economic growth) were introduced 7 months after our original application was made. That application was made under the criteria which existed at the time.
In March 2010, KAIROS submitted a new application addressing the new priorities. This is still before CIDA and we hope it will be reviewed on its merits." For more information, go to Kairos's website http://www.kairoscanada.org/fileadmin/fe/files/PD…

madeyoulook

Gee, they're now using the Mulroney defense!

The more this goes on, the more I fear it is because Harper forced this on Oda at the very beginning, and the last thing he wants is an ex-cabinet minister in the person of Bev Oda.

This is pretty shameful.

danby

the more I fear it is because Harper forced this on Oda at the very beginning

Would you be surprised if he had?

chet

Going into the election Harper will be offering Canada an economic roadmap for continued prosperity,

and the Liberals will be offering……"Bev Oda wasn't sure who wrote the "not" on a single internal memorandum!!!!!"

This one won't even be close.

Not, even, close.

Amateur Hour

Harper will be offering tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer financed advertising for a 2-year-old stimulus program that wasn't his idea, for an economic downturn he didn't believe existed, and will toss in a few mentions of tax benefits brought in in 2006.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/har…

Will we hear about his $114 billion dollar bailout of Canada's banks ($65 billion made in the weeks prior to the 2008 election)? I doubt it.
Not Stephen Colbert

Is the CPC paying you in punctuation?
chet

While I appreciate the ground rules imposed by the "progressives": economy improves – not Harper's doint

economy slows – Harper's fault

most Canadians don't acribe to them.

SanDiegoDave

Chet, you're writing too fast. Calm down and repost that response. I can't make heads or tails of it. It's hard to be grammatically correct when you're furious.

chet

And right on cue, the latest Leger poll, shows the CPC with a whopping 13 POINT lead,

and more startling, having 41 PERCENT IN VOTE RICH ONTARIO.

The icing:

the poll was taken during the heart of this latest purported "scandal".
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/318730/s…

More scandal mongering from the Liberals please.
OriginalEmily1

'Want a Tory's straight answer? First guess the secret correct question ' as Tabatha Southey said in the headline.
NorthernPoV

His explanation reminds me a lot of childhood experimentation with the Ouija-board.
Parsing just the right question to wake the (brain) dead! ;-)
john g

What an utterly disgraceful performance by Lukiwski.
NorthernPoV

Silly avr, defending the indefensible….

When Oda was asked the question, there was no scandal. Simply a Parliamentary committee doing its job:
"How did a long-funded and well respected church-based NGO suddenly have its funding cut off, after CIDA approval and with no adequate explanation and with such a weird paper trail."
Oda caused the scandal by with-holding the truth. (That the jihadis in Harper's coven hate any group that is to the left of Attila the Hun and had added the infamous NOT.)
She was ashamed of the fraud she had become part of … and cannot be allowed to answer questions to this day for fear of blurting out the truth.
criselis

But not surprising or out of character.
Amateur Hour

Two weeks prior to the official funding cut by CIDA, another Tory minister, Jason Kenney, trumpeted that KAIROS had lost its funding because it was anti-Israel. This was a false charge, but one that Kenney had no problem spouting while addressing an Israeli audience. He then denied saying anything of the kind, only to be caught in a lie upon a lie. Add to this Ms. Oda's first lie (that CIDA officials advised her that the KAIROS application did not meet departmental priorities) and her second lie (that she had no clue about who put the "not" on the document), and we have TWO ministers of state lying on at least 4 separate occasions about the same issue. That two of those lies were made before the House is an aggravating factor.

This isn't a tempest in a teapot. This is lying by Government ministers to the press, to the people and to the House. Not one time has their leader, Mr. Harper, objected to these acts of gross misconduct. He and they need to go before they do more damage.
Holly Stick

And look at where CIDA is sending money now, to mining corporations:
http://www.miningwatch.ca/en/cida-subsidizes-mini…

And changed the CIDA process to bidding for contracts:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/02/21/f-…
Mike T.

See your making a classic error here. It's not that you have to meet the imaginary criteria they invent after the fact and then they act properly, you meet the imaginary criteria AND THEN THEY INVENT ANOTHER CRITERIA!
chet

Love how the petty partisans haven't been noticing the direct correlation between Harper's poll numbers and their attacks.

Meanwhile I just saw another ad about Harper "being there for Canada".

It's as if they're on strings. Harper couldn't have asked for a better juxtaposition to his image of getting things done for Canada, than a bunch of petty politicians lustful for power offering no solutions for everyday Canadians.
bennji1977

I actually see more of a correlation between Harper's poll numbers and the 26 milion tax payer funded ad blitz paid for by the Canadian tax payer.
chet

Every government has done that.

Every one.

It's just the conservatives who must divorce themselves from the fact that they are the governing party.

A magnifying glass to the right, a blind eye to the left.

Today's leftist media.
LdKitchenersOwn

Yeah, those crazy leftists!!!

Where on Earth did they get the idea that governance under the Tories was going to be different from the past???
D.D.S

meet the new boss….same as the old boss
criselis

Please chet – stop saying "leftist media". This drinking game is pickling me.
SanDiegoDave

To paraphrase a commenter (Andrea_W) in the Globe article, every time a partisan idiot starts mouthing off, we should all just respond "No one gets a Dairy Queen!"

Sure we'll all end up sounding like Daniel Plainview, but ANYTHING to shut partisans up and make fools of them is good in my book.

PS- is my rabid anti-partisan stance making me sound like a partisan?