Bev Oda

[cphansen]

I have a hard time understanding why she is so strongly supported by Harper.

To me, the situation is very clear.

Bev Oda is the minister and as such is responsible for her department to the Canadian people.

As the Minister, she needs to use her best judgement and does not have to follow her departmental staff's recommendations. She can disregard them and really has the duty to disregard them if she feels it is in the interest of Canada to do so.

The problem though is in the way she disregarded them. She took an already signed document and had the word not inserted which reversed the advice of the signees. There was no indication that the originaters saw or agreed with the change in the document. To me it would have been far better if she had just noted on the document that she had read it and disagreed with it so the department would not be issuing the grant.

Instead she just had the not inserted without taking responsibility for it, and then denied all knowledge of it to Parliament. She took no personal or ministrial responsibility.

This is not the action of someone I would like to have in my  chain of command. If you can't stand by your decisions then you shouldn't be in a position to make decisions

Corrected my last two sentences to make clear what I wanted to say

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?

 

[Journeyman]

I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?

Not a signed document, without acknowledgement by the signatories.

 

[Nemo888]

IF you did that with a 5$ cheque that would be fraud and you could get up to 5 years. But if it is a document worth 7 million,....

Oda has always been a train wreck. The sooner we drop her the better. We don't need another Guergis.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is no questions that Ministerial prerogative permitted the rescinding of the approval; however, normal procedures would be to minute the signature sheet, make the amendment (including own signature block), and then advise the signatories that the approval had been rescinded.  The Financial Administration Act is clear on Section 32 authorizations and the procedures for encumbrance, commitment or release of public funds.

Regards
G2G

 

[cphansen]

I think it was a totally legit exercise of ministerial authority.  The unwillingness to own up to it was silly but I think that editing a document by hand was no attempt to mislead anyone and would be a normal procedure.  Isn't a liberal use of red pencil normal everywhere?

What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.

Write a letter (not an email) to the PMO and your MP. Complaining here won't change anything.

 

[cphansen]

Good idea, not that I think it will do any good but if I don't write the letters, how can I think of myself as a good citizen

 

[GAP]

What really bothers me is, IMHO, her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decision by not initializing the document change. I don't like what it indicates to me regarding her sense of honour.

If you had followed the total story....she was out of town, verbally directed the change................how was she to initial it?

 

[cphansen]

Thanks for the info, does that mean a Minister has to be in town to authorize any changes, because they couldn't initial it otherwise?

Seems to me there are things like courier services, faxes, emails etc. and simply writing by order of the minister and the person making the change would have to note it.

There are undoubtably procedures in place to make sure that changes like this are recorded.

Simply inserting the word not, changes a recommendation made by her department in a document sent to her without the knowledge of her department.

It seems to me to be an evasion of her responsibility and duty to stand by her decision. It looks like an attempt to shift the decision to her department.

While she has the right and duty to override her department's recommendation, she does not have a right or priviledge to try to make it seem like someone else made the decision.

She needs to stand by her decision and because of her actions she should now explain why and how she came to a different decision than her department

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks for the info, does that mean a Minister has to be in town to authorize any changes, because they couldn't initial it otherwise?

Seems to me there are things like courier services, faxes, emails etc. and simply writing by order of the minister and the person making the change would have to note it.

There are undoubtably procedures in place to make sure that changes like this are recorded.

Simply inserting the word not, changes a recommendation made by her department in a document sent to her without the knowledge of her department.

It seems to me to be an evasion of her responsibility and duty to stand by her decision. It looks like an attempt to shift the decision to her department.

While she has the right and duty to override her department's recommendation, she does not have a right or priviledge to try to make it seem like someone else made the decision.

She needs to stand by her decision and because of her actions she should now explain why and how she came to a different decision than her department

ex·trap·o·late (k-strp-lt)

To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Oda, like any minster, has a right, sometimes a political duty, to decline the advice of her officials and to demand that they enact policies that run directly counter to their best judgments.

In this case she made two mistakes: one minor ("editing" a signed document rather than demanding a "clean" revision); and one major (misleading the HoC). She should be forgiven the first but she should resign for the second. Harper should reapoint her to cabinet after a brief (six monhs or until after the necxt general election) spell in the "woodshed."
 

 

[cphansen]

ex·trap·o·late (k-strp-lt)

To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values.

Unfortunately extrapolation is still a guess, even if it is a logical educated guess and as such can be influenced by the guesser's attitude and prejudices. This is one of those murky areas where I, for one, do not want to have my attitudes influence my guess instead I need more info so back to the papers.

 

[PuckChaser]

While she has the right and duty to override her department's recommendation, she does not have a right or priviledge to try to make it seem like someone else made the decision.

Is she ultimately not responsible for the actions of her department? Whether she initialed the change or not, she ordered the change and was therefore responsible for the lack of funding. The person that recommended the funding in the first place would probably have been completely OK with not recommending the funding on her order, if she had made the change before the memo was drafted. She is accountable for the funds and decided they should not go to this organization and corrected an oversight.

I think her biggest fault is how she handled the situation and her explanation to Parliament about it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
I think her biggest fault is how she handled the situation and her explanation to Parliament about it.

Agreed, and I think her resignation would be good policy - respect for parliament - and good politics - taking responsibility/owning up, etc. I believe it, her resignation, would help her  party (taking the issue off the table) and her own re-election chances, if she's running again.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ministers are out of town all the time.  There are ways and means of properly recording an official decision document.  Given the gravity of overriding senior staff recommendation, there should absolutely have been more than a "because she told me to" scribble by a staffer whom the Minister spoke to to direct the NOT be added, yet strangely the Minister can't recall who he staffer was she was talking to?  That's sloppy staffing and execution of Ministrial mandate in my books.

What should have happened was the decision document include the staff recommendation, then spaced below on a separate line for the Minister, a decision election phrase:

APPROVED / NOT APPROVED

and the appropriate decision by the Minister circled and signed beneath the selection.  As well, proper procedure to be followed for a decision by the Minister 'remotely' would require a note in the place of the Minister's signature block indicating the means and details by which the Minister's official decision was relayed, i.e. "Not approved, per telecon between Minister Oda/Staffer 'X', 1:35pm 6 Jan 2011."  Then there would be no question as to the decision, and how the decision was officially registered.

It smacks of sloppiness both by the Minister and by her staff. It is the responsibility of officials of Government, both elected and public servant, to ensure the taxpayers' money is managed in a responsible and accountable manner.

Regards
G2G

 

[cphansen]

Ministers are out of town all the time.  There are ways and means of properly recording an official decision document.  Given the gravity of overriding senior staff recommendation, there should absolutely have been more than a "because she told me to" scribble by a staffer whom the Minister spoke to to direct the NOT be added, yet strangely the Minister can't recall who he staffer was she was talking to?  That's sloppy staffing and execution of Ministrial mandate in my books.

What should have happened was the decision document include the staff recommendation, then spaced below on a separate line for the Minister, a decision election phrase:

APPROVED / NOT APPROVED

and the appropriate decision by the Minister circled and signed beneath the selection.  As well, proper procedure to be followed for a decision by the Minister 'remotely' would require a note in the place of the Minister's signature block indicating the means and details by which the Minister's official decision was relayed, i.e. "Not approved, per telecon between Minister Oda/Staffer 'X', 1:35pm 6 Jan 2011."  Then there would be no question as to the decision, and how the decision was officially registered.

It smacks of sloppiness both by the Minister and by her staff. It is the responsibility of officials of Government, both elected and public servant, to ensure the taxpayers' money is managed in a responsible and accountable manner.

Regards
G2G

Sloppiness is the right word. Evasion would have been the word I would think of, but that may be a little strong.

 

[Rifleman62]

Also see the article at link: Friday, February 18, 2011, The Coalition, Media Vipers Brood

From Chasing Apple Pie  http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Media Has Failed on the Oda "NOT" Story

Over the last week the lame stream media has bombarded  print and the airwaves with the so called Minister Bev Oda forgery and how she lied stories about a document refusing funding for KAIROS which is actually an activist group that lobbies for social and ecological justice..

The media failed IMHO as usual to get to the facts and the truth. Photos of Ms. Oda  wearing sunglasses and smoking was plastered all over the papers to make her look in as bad light as possible. The photos have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.  They've hung her before all the facts are known. Instead they keep repeating the coalition talking points. Did they not pay attention to what was testified to in committee?  Did they not listen to what Margaret Biggs, CIDA's president and accounting officer had said?

    Mr. Jean Dorion: Ms. Biggs, was the word “not” handwritten on the form that you signed on September 28, two months before the minister signed it?

    Ms. Margaret Biggs (President, Canadian International Development Agency): No, it wasn't, sir.

    Mr. Jean Dorion: So then, when you signed the form, you were in fact giving your approval. You were recommending approval, since the form states: “Recommendation: That you sign below to indicate you approve a contribution of $7,098,756 over four years for the above program.” So then, on September 28, you were recommending that the minister approve the project.

    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.

I don't know if it's just plain laziness, the strong dislike they have for PM Harper and his government, especially the women in this government, or is it incompetence?  There has not been any common sense fairness  in this story whatsoever.  For that you have to go to the blogs for that including this one from a Liberal blogger no less.  It is thorough, well though out, fair and clear. Others to check out are Climbing out of the Dark, CruxoftheMatter, Bluelikeyou, and The Iceman.  It has taken citizen journalists to do the job of the so called profession journalists.  No wonder the lame stream media is losing credibility.

Greg Weston from CBC stated something rather disturbing on Power and Politics the other day that really should be investigated. He hinted at maybe some collusion going between civil servants and media.  You can hear it here at the 18:45 mark.

    “Good for us potentially, because, I think, I’m hearing more and more from the senior public service saying ‘enough’. And if they turn against the Harper Government there is no more ferocious enemy because they have all the brown envelopes.”

What did Greg mean by "us anyway?"  If this is true, it's not good and I believe needs to be looked into.  This is a good example of why PM Harper and the Conservatives need a majority.  House needs to be cleaned in the service.

The media and the opposition coalition have taken it upon themselves to be prosecutor, judge,jury and executioner before all the evidence is in.  They are seeing what they want to see. They are hearing what they want to hear never mind the truth.  They are looking for out their own self interests only and are trying everything in the book to bring this government down even if it means ruining reputations in the process.  They don't' care. They don't care about you. They don't care about me. They don't care about the country.

 

[DBA]

A decent article on the issue that has source material (Hansard excerpts and an image of the document) : Just the Facts: How Bev Oda got tied up in “nots”.

Myself I would say read a day of Hansard and you will probably come to the same decision on what is said in the HoC as I have: "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" and best ignored. What few points are made are minuscule compared to the endless insults flying back and forth with the NDP being especially long winded and the worst of the lot.  As an example read Hansard for March 1st:

40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 136
Tuesday, March 1, 2011​

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Stuff like this will end when the Conservatives get a majority and have a Conservative speaker in the House.  Not that Peter Milliken has done a bad job but partisanship seems to shine through at times.