I have just sent an email off to my MP (a member of the NDP) to see what her reaction to the article is.

Awesome. 

I have just telephoned my MP's office (Pat Davidson - Conservative) and requested a response: What is my MP's position on the matter? Will the government reconsider the matter of funding?

Brad Morrison

Hi Martha,

I have just e-mailed my MP (Phil McColeman-Conservative-Brant) and requested his response to the matter of the doctoring of the document and whether or not Kairos funding should be reinstated in light of the fact that the document was altered.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 I will try again, but, never have any success with any logic with our MP. Gary Goodyear.   

I have discussed Kairos with the MP from Kitchener, and had a good response from him which indicated he may actually be able to think on his own.  I will be sending info to him as well, to ask , how can he stomach this crap. 

I hope folks will take the time to read the testimony from Minister Oda in the transcription provided. There is nothing new here.

1) The CIDA officials sent forward their recommendation to the minister approving the KAIROS grant.

2) At some point after that, and apparently before the minister's signature was added, the word "not" was added to the form, without any initial as to who made the addition. The form itself was flawed, as it only allowed a positive response. The addition of the word "not" was an attem to to correct that flaw. A new form is now in use.

3) Minister Oda may not have actually signed the form and may not have seen it (a machine may have been used to sign the form). However, like a good Minister, she stands by her signature and the addition.

While this may be troubling to some, it simply shows a clear lack of clarity and process on the part of the government and points more directly to the conclusion that the KAIROS grant change was an absolutely political decision, made at the highest levels.

None of this is new.

As an aside, I have been told that KAIROS staff members are also members of the United Church Pension Plan.

Like it or not, that is her job. She is a politician. She makes the political decisions which reflect the policies of her party. That is the way government in Canada works, and always has. I know of many United Church projects which received approval to go forward because a politician blessed the congregation's application. I have submitted more than one myself.

What people object to here is that our "good work" was turned down at the highest level. That says more than anything about the political agenda of the current government. And we don't like being said "no" to.

#1. yes, the minister could. However, the statement was made and the papers presented indicating that the minister had not.   

#2 No, what he said was, that his jurisdiction is only for what was within the the House.  records. He cites chapter & verse of how his hands are tied within the paper attached to the CBC article.  The challenge is some of hte items occurred outside of the house. Some papers were not filed with the House.  

 aaah, besh..good for you. if your reputation with your mp is as good as it is here, it may work in the favour of kairos that you are supporting oda.

Hi DKS,

Believe it or not that isn't at all my concern.  I actually have no problem with CIDA not funding Kairos because if the Church really thought it was a necessity the Church and by extension Church members would do what was necessary to ensure Kairos kept going.

My concerns are:

That two individuals can sign a document supporting funding and that document can be altered after the fact to deny funding while their signatures remain on it.

Whatever the political decision ultimately is (be it to fund or not fund) it is fraudulent to change a document that individuals have already signed so that its meaning and intent is actually contrary to what has been signed.

I recognize it is not a contract and so it is not a legal promise.  I still find it reprehensible that two individuals could have their intent utterly and completely hi-hacked.

Add to that the fact that nobody knows (or claims to know) who has actually done the hi-jacking.

| would expect the Minister to stand by her decision and her signature even if I disagreed with the decision.

I do not expect the Minister to condon fraudulent activity.

To be blunt I would also expect that the Minister, when hearing of possible fraud pertaining to the document, would commit themselves to finding out how the document could be altered rather than brushing it off as par for the course.

So again, the decision to fund or not fund is fully within the rights of the Federal Government to determine.  I would appreciate honest and straight forward answers as to why that decision is made but I don't expect them.  I am concerned that, at the very least, there is a serious breech in ethics involved in the decision not to fund.  I would like to know that this kind of behaviour is not considered acceptable or normative by my MP.

Grace and peace to you.

John

But that's not what happend, John. The document originally only had a positive response possible. That was signed by the two CIDA officials. The Ministerial decision was negative, so that somehow had to be indicated. The addition was made at some point, either before or after the Minister's signature to indicate that. Nothing was altered other than that the addition reflected the minister's decision. if there was an error, it was that the Minister did not initial the addition, which would have been proper.

What is fraudulent here? The positive recommendation went forward and was refused. The document reflects the refusal.

huh? Theirs is a recommendation. It can aither be accepted or rejected. It was rejected.

It is a reasonable conclusion that it happened in the Minister's office and she stands behind the decision. i agree, the lack of her initial on her addition is somewhat troubling. It' indicates bad process, but not much more.

And she has.

Nothing fraudulent occurred.

There is no fraud, as you suggest.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 Here is a link where you can view and get instructions for ordering the new "Kairos is (NOT) going away" T-shirt.  A good looking shirt that makes a good statement . It is just so "au courant".

 http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/resources/kairos-t-shirts/

Hi DKS,

I disagree.  The President and Vice President signed a document which says to fund.

The document is later editted to deny funding.  The two signatures remained on the document.  Which means that the document now means something other than what they signed.  That simply is not on.  It is not just a flawed document or a bad process it borders on the criminal.

If you had written a note saying you would not pay me a million dollars and signed it and then I altered that note by removing the not and claimed that you now owed me a million dollars I would be engaged in fraudulent purposes.

I submit that substantially changing the intent of a document without the consent of all signing parties is fraudulent.

The minister should have signed the alteration as should have the president and vice-president of CIDA since their names are attached.  At the very least there should have been three places for approval or non-approval to be recorded.  Which would allow all signing parties to indicate their own recommendations.

I understand the alteration is an attempt to fix a faulty document.  I don't think the fix makes the document less faulty especially since it appeared that it was three individuals who rejected the claim rather than the minister.

That an investigation needed to be had to even clarify that point does more than suggest something is wrong with the forms they use.

Which is fair right up until the alteration changes the previous agreements of two senior officials into denials.

It would have been proper for the minister to initial.  It would also have been proper for the two CIDA officials who previously recommended funding to also initial the alteration if they agreed with the alteration or at least indicate that they stood by their initial recommendations.

The alteration does not give them that option.  It communicates that not only did the minister deny funding but that the President and Vice-President of CIDA recommended that Kairos not be funded and that is a deliberate misrepresentation of both the President and the Vice-President.

I think that warrants the use of the term fraudulent.

Grace and peace to you.

John

No, John. the Minister's signature overrode their votes of approval. That's the way the system works.  The document did not allow for a negative opinion, as the minister said, so this was the poor remedy. Sloppiness, nothing more.

Not when the signatures are a recommendation, but the minister's decision is final.

No. The minister should have initialed the change, as her signature overrode (trumped, to use card language) the other two signatures.

That's what I said. The form was flawed.

umm...noper...that does not appear to be what happened..again, based on what we have been told.

Oda does not know when it was changed.

Oda indicated staff was in agreement (Abbott(?) as well).

Again, lots of questions still unanswered...but, something smells really bad here.

It was not a form, it was a typed recommendation that two senior officials signed. If the Minister did not want to accept those recommendations, the normal course of events would be to leave the document unsigned herself. Instead, since the NOT was inserted after the officials signed, it implies that they were agreeing with whole statement, including the NOT.

If I don't want a loan that my credit union officials have agreed to and signed, I don't need to sign the contract and insert something like "I don't agree..." - I just don't sign it - period. I wouldn't appreciate it either if they inserted a higher interest rate once I had signed. Bev Oda didn't need to sign the document at all if she didn't agree with the recommendation.

I bought the T-shirt!  I can't wait to get one!

And yes, as a matter of fact, KAIROS staff are members of the pension plan of the United Church...not sure how that's relevant...

ps: also, initials usually accompany any changes to documents. ANY changes. I know I had to initial my mortgage about 17 times to acknowledge date changes, cost updates, inclusions, exclusions...

And now it turns out that Oda was actually lying when she said that she didn't know how it got changed, and that it was her after all.

 yes, the evidence is stacking up......of course, it is like so much in the world, one can know someone is a slime, but it is hard to prove it.

DKS, I am surprised by your comments.  If the Honourable Minister was inclined to behave honorably and clearly, she would have written, or typed, a second document rejecting the recommendation of the other two people, preferably, but not necessarily, with her rationale for her rejection of the recommendation.  To write in the word 'not' on the original document is clearly a lazy or deceiful act.  I believe you to be an honourable person from your comments on a variety of threads, yet what you are saying here is that if I were to send you a document, it would be okay for you to alter that document as long as you initialed the alteration without indicating that I was unaware of the change you made in it.  Paper documents are intended to be a record of a transaction that clearly describes the input or agreement, unless otherwise noted, of the people represented in that transaction.

And herein lies (no pun intended) the real issue, IMHO....

All this subterfuge and back pedaling leaves the impression that there was something shameful about the process even if that is not at all what occurred.  If the Minister was confident in her decision she would not have had to dance around it - honesty is the best politics in the long run despite the repeated denial of that reality by politicians.

I do not believe that I am alone in my paranoia when these examples of ministerial transgressions are revealed; that if they are willing to be deceitful on matters like this what else are they hiding.  This case reveals either out and out deceit or incompetence - a minister signing documents without knowing what they are signing is incompetent.  Regardless of the actual intent one should question whether that individual is the right person to do the job.

I would also add, since memories are short, the shameful attacks that occurred after the initial decision to reject Kairos funding when accusations were made against this organization by Ministers of the current government to justify the decision.  At the time these Ministers claimed that CIDA had made the rejection - now we know in Ms. Oda's own words

 "… 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 provide funding was mine — or, to not provide funding — was mine as minister of international co-operation," she said.

"I was fully aware that my decision was not aligned with the recommendation of the department."  (CBC News Feb 14 2011)

I shall not hold my breath waiting for any of  the "honorable" members to issue an apology for the earlier smear tactics. 

btw, RevMatt, like your new avatar....

LB

Those who think it is permissible to tell white lies soon grow color-blind.

     Austin O'Malley

I disagree with the decision tha was made, and I'm appalled that Oda (once this document became public) essentially lied about it. On the issue of process, however ...

I'm not convinced that there was fraud or wrongdoing in how the document got "altered" - although Oda should have admitted from the start (once the document became public) that she had inserted or ordered to be inserted the word "NOT." But altering what is essentially an internal document as it moves its way up the syatem is neither fraudulent nor does it border on criminal. We're not dealing with equals here. The document is working its way up a hierarchy (I know hierarchy is a bad word in the United Church but this is real life folks.) The bureaucrats make the recommendations, but the minister is at the top of the hierarchy. She makes the decision. She changed the recommendation. She has the right to do so.

I have many times seen Presbytery change terms of call or terms of appointment. (In fact, I had a call changed once - it wasn't a significant change but it was still a change.) The document by that time has been signed by both the minister being called and the pastoral charge issuing the call. But the Presbytery doesn't go to the Pastoral Charge and ask for their approval; nor does it go to the minister for approval. It simply advises both of the change, because the Presbytery is the Presbytery and ultimately it's the Presbytery's decision. All the signatures remain and no note is made that not all the signatories have agreed to the change, nor is the option given for the signatories to record their disapproval.

In this case we're dealing with an internal mechanism of the government. The final decision is made by the minister responsible. She disagreed with the recommendations from the CIDA officials. She doesn't have to agree with them and she doesn't have to accept their advice and she can unilaterally change or reject the recommendation just like Presbytery can accept, reject or amend terms of call. (I should add by way of edit that the bureaucrats don't record whether they agree or disagree with the minister's decision because whether or not the bureaucrats agree or disagree with the minister isn't really relevant. Their job is to implement government policy whether they agree with it or not.) Why can she do that? Because the minister is the minister.

Hi RevMatt,

Either that or she is now taking one for the team.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Okay, I don't even care about the funding. This bizzare statement that the minister has the right to decide not to fund said organization, and thus nothing wrong was done, is just that, bizzare. Yes, the minister has every right to decide not to fund the organization. But NOT to lie to commitee about the documents or how the decision was reached. So before anyone decides to defend (again) Bev Oda, here are her own words.

In a Dec. 9 committee appearance, Ms. Oda said she didn’t know who inserted the “not.” She then responded defensively to repeated questions from the opposition.

“It’s like we’re on CSI or it’s an investigative forensic thing, asking who put the ‘not’ in. I’d like to know what your issue is. What is your issue?” she responded in December to questions from Liberal MP John McKay.

So now she says she never tried to mislead the house or anyone. What? Now she did put the 'not' in the document. But when she lied about she had forgotten I suppose. Again in her own words.

Ms. Oda correctly stated Monday that it’s within her right to overrule public servants, but what has the opposition up in arms is that she told MPs in December that she didn’t know who put the “not” there.

“The ‘not’ was inserted at my direction,” Ms. Oda said Monday in the House of Commons. “Given the way the document was formatted … this was the only way to reflect my decision.”

Now just read these two statements by Bev Oda together and explain to me how one is not a lie.

With respect, Internet Owl, that's what I said. The problem was with her dishonesty and not with the process that was followed. I was rep[lying to revjohn's comments about the process bordering on criminal - which is nonsense. And I wasn't defending Bev Oda. I said I disagreed with the decision. I was acknowledging that, internally, the process was a normal process of a recommendation working its way up through the system.

Having said that, the Opposition began this by focussing on the "NOT" rather than on the policy recommendation, for the simple reason that they figured they could score political points off it. Where the "NOT" came from isn't all that important really (although Oda should have been honest once the question was raised.) What mattered is what the decision was, and what mattered was that Oda (and the government collectively) was responsible for the decision (for the "NOT" regardless of where or from whom it came.) That's how our system works. And the government should be held accountable because more than once (remember the census fiasco) it's tried to hide behind bureaucrats for decisions that they're supposed to be responsible for.

Good point.  I should know better than to assume that we are ever going to actually hear anything resembling truth from this regime.

This sort of this really amazes me.  We've seen it time and time again when a politition tries to avoid embarassment by lying; the lie gets discovered; and it gets a whole lot worse.  Why not just take the small hit at the beginning, and be done with it.  If Ms. Oda had said at the very beginnng "Yup, I cut the funding.  This group isn't the direction this government is going" we would not even be talking about now.  Come to think of it, it's not just polititions.  Remember all those pro-baseball players that lied to the US Senate about doing steroids?  You'd think they would teach that on day one of MP school: Don't make a small deal into a big deal.

Judging by the deceit skills she displayed, probably not much.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis

My comment, suggesting that the behaviour borders on the criminal is, perhaps, an overstatement.

It is, however; not one that I will edit or apologize for in light of the new testimony (which may not be a statement of truth itself)

I know of know reason to lie about ministerial responsibility or action unless, of course, that ministerial action or ability is questionable.

I agree that the form was a bad one.

I do not think that the attempted fix made a bad situation better or, at the very least, more tolerable.  

Certainly statements made at the time, including an apology from an MP for misleading statements, speaks volumes to me about the value of truth in the political system.  Which is not me taking a partisan line and saying this is what separates the Conservatives from the rest.  I take it as given that all political parties play fast and loose with the truth.

Admittedly we are not.

That anyone can turn my yea to a nay with a slight alteration is deliberately fraudulent.  The form is a flawed document which does not allow any signatory to say yea or nay.  That is what makes the document flawed.  The alteration does not allow any signatory to say yea or nay.  It is still a flawed document.

What amounts to fraud, from my vantage point is that two individuals signed a document which said yea.  I suspect that they had the right to not sign the document at all and that they are not, as a matter of fact, forced to sign the document at all.

It is regrettable that the Minister is forced to sign the document as proof that she is actually doing her job and reviewing funding requests particularly since there is no room on the form for her to deny funding.  It makes one question how long such a form has been in service and how other denials have used that particular form.

So the minister, or someone else with or without the knowledge of the minister changes the document to reflect the decision that the Minister thinks actually should be made.  This would be fair if we know who actually made the alteration and if the other two parties are allowed to indicate what their recommendation actually is.

I know it appears that I am being incredibly petty on this point.

The alteration to the document changes what the President and the Vice-President of CIDA recommended.  It misrepresents their recommendations and that is an assault on their integrity.

I don't care that it is an internal memo.

The fact that anyone can wave that memo about and say that all three signatories agree that the funding should be denied is an act of fraud.  Lawyers for the prosecution and defence would either agree or disagree with me and an impartial judge would decide one way or the other.  If it ever got that far.

Which I don't believe any of us have suggested is not the case.  For the most part disagreement has been about the form and what the alteration of the form means.  Or, what is meant by how the form was altered.

True enough.  Those changes are never done without Presbytery as a whole being informed are they?  I've been part of the same ordeal.  The terms of call are always made public even if they have been changed along the way.  I suppose if the congregation or the minister invovled had a serious disagreement with the change to the terms one or the other could back away.

I haven't seen it happen.  I don't know how it would happen.  I have no doubts that it could happen.  So while Presbytery can make such amendments I have yet to see Presbytery do so without some consultation involved.

Now, what if Presbytery took a form altered it to mean something opposite from what the form actually says?  How would that fly at a Presbytery meeting?

Agreed.  The minister has that power.  The minister does not have the power to change the recommendations of two bureaucrats from decisions to fund into decisions not to fund.  That is what the alteration does.

This is not a matter of a minister sticking by their decision.

This is a matter of an altered document.  A document that is altered to mean something other than it originally said and an alteration that fundamentally changes what the bureaucrats actually recommended.

We hire bureaucrats (he types naively) based on their skill and their ability to do job X.  We slot our ministers into their cabinets based on how well they say yes to the PM.  When the heat is on the minister takes the fall because the minister has the responsibility.

The altered document means that Minister Oda isn't the only one taking the heat for the decision not to fund.  Although the President and Vice-President of CIDA made it very clear that they had not signed the altered document.  Something that they wouldn't have had to do if there had been a proper form and something they would not have been called to do if there had been honesty upfront about the nature of the alteration.

So given that there was dishonesty how is the use of the word fraudulent out of bounds?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi RevMatt,

Half-truths and broken promises are the currency of politics.

Every now and then a politician comes along who values integrity.  I don't think that any party is immune from having such a politician.

I lament that all aren't plagued with them.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Alta,

You are probably very right.

We all know, or expect our politicians to lie to us and we are, for the most part, content to hold our noses and play along.

The game just isn't fun when they stuff a skunk up your nose and try to convince you it is really a rose.

Why they don't teach this on day one is beyond me.  I guess the regular sheep aren't thought to be bright enough to notice or ornery enough not to kick or butt when annoyed.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Let's focus on this for a moment.

I worked as an assistant to a Cabinet minister for a couple of years in the last term of the Trudeau government, and I have a bit of knowledge at least of how the system worked then, which - from what I've heard of this situation - doesn't seem significantly different.

In spite of what you say, the officials did not have a right not to sign the document. In fact they had an obligation to produce a policy recommendation for their minister. They did so and they signed it. The policy recommendation then goes to the minister. The minister then has a decision to make - do I agree with this recommendation or do I disagree with it. If the minister is going to disagree with it, the minister alters the document and then submits it to a Cabinet Committee; if the minister agrees with it the minister submits it unchanged to the Cabinet Committee. The very alteration of such a document is the sign to the Cabinet that there's a disagreement between the bureaucracy and the minister. The Cabinet Committee then makes a decision on whether to adopt the recommendation or not. The matter may end there with the decision recorded in the minutes of the full Cabinet, or - if any minister disagrees with the recommendation - the recommendation goes to the full Cabinet for a final decision, subject to the approval or disapproval of the Prime Minister, who's going to have the final say. This is all internal stuff.

You say it doesn't matter that it's internal. I say it matters a lot. Everybody involved in the process knows the process. Everybody involved in the process (ie, the Cabinet and the bureaucrats) know that if the document has been altered, it's been altered by the minister - because what was originally written was written by the bureaucrats, and the only one who's going to change the bureaucracy's recommendation is the minister. The "NOT" is a complete and total non-issue, which says two things to me:

1) Bev Oda was an idiot for lying about it because everybody (including the Opposition) knows that she's the only one who's going to change a recommendation from the bureaucracy to the Cabinet - because she's the only one who has the power to do so.

2) The Opposition - who know full well what the process is - didn't even have any legitimate reason to question who inserted the "NOT" - because anybody who knows the process by which bureaucratic recommendations end up going to the Cabinet knows that it had to have been Oda (or at least on Oda's instructions.) But they figured they could get more headlines and score more political points by trying to portray this as some suspicious act (when it's not; it's simply the way the process works and everybody involved understands that including the Liberals and NDP who are faking outrage over the "NOT") than they would if they had dealt with the actual substance of the policy decision.

Oda should be dropped from the Cabinet. Not only did she lie, she lied for absolutely no reason because the truth was so painfully obvious. She showed terrible judgment and terrible leadership by lying. She should be out. But the focus should be on the subtance of the policy and not on the system which worked exactly as it's supposed to in bringing a recommendation to the Cabinet.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

I am willing to agree with all of the above with the proviso.

The document is flawed because it requires an alteration.  I do not believe, in principle that we should be encouraging our politicians to make such alterations when room can be made to indicate approval or non-approval.

I will accept that it is a common working document.  I still do not think that any disagreement by the minister as per recommendations should ever be allowed to be portrayed as disagreement by the bureaucrats as well.  That apparently is a non-issue.

As to politicians making hay out of the missteps of their opposition that is also to be expected.

It demonstrates that Minister Oda may not be ready for a cabinet post as yet.  What remains to be seen is if the PM will ask her to fall on her own sword.

As I have mentioned up thread I respect the right of the Minister to act in accordance with the government's directives.  I do not challenge the right of the Minister to make a decision for or against.  I am still not onside with the fact that the alteration to a document can change the intent of the documents signatories without their consent or knowledge and I don't particularly care how internal that document is.  Playing fast and loose with the integrity of others is not something I find to be okay.

The situation will play out in Parliament how it plays out.

Grace and peace to you.

John

But Bev Oda and the government didn't play fast and loose with anybody's integrity (except her own by lying) by altering the document, because nobody involved in the process, once they see the document, is going to think that the bureaucrats' signatures on an altered document indicates their approval of the recommendation as altered. They wrote the original recommendation. The minister signed whatever its final form is. Aside from lying, the big mistake she made was probably in not initialling the "NOT" - but, again, that's important if you know it's going to become a public document, because the only people who might think that the bureaucrats agreed with the final form of the document are people who don't understand how Cabinet documents work, which is why they're supposed to be internal - and then, in our system, the decision gets made and regardless of who liked it or who didn't like it, the bureaucracy implements it and the government is collectively responsible for it.

Could the form be structured better? Sure. But it only needs to be structured better if the process of how a Cabinet decision gets made (and the desire to know who agreed and disagreed) rather than merely the actual final decision is going to be made public - which these documents really aren't intended to be.

I would beg to differ.  Mr. Harper, the Conservative Party and Mrs. Oda considered "where the 'NOT' came from" to be very important and that is why they saw fit to lie about it.  If it came from the bureaucrats as we were intended to believe then the cutting of funding could be characterized as not a government decision but a bureacratic decision (behind which the Minister and the government could take shelter).  If the 'NOT' was inserted by Mrs. Oda then the funding cut was a decision taken despite expert bureaucratic opinion to the contrary by a mean spirited and bloody minded government against a fully compliant and efficient NGO that was exceeding published expectations and standards in performance of its mission and which was (inconveniently from the point of view of Conservative back room operatives) affiliated with one of Canada's largest churches whose membership contains a very high percentage of the over fifty demographic that is a key demographic for the Conservative Party.

I don't actually disagree with you, qwerty. My point is that the process itself worked the way the process has worked for a long time. This is how bureaucratic recommendations make their way from the bureaucracy to the Cabinet. The internal process is fine. The problem here is the dishonest spin that's being put on the process.

With respect Rev. Steven Davis, not every Cabinet uses the process you've outlined. My husband used to work for provincial Minister and they followed the process I outlined above - some recommendations did not get ministerial approval and therefore, the document was not signed off by him.

I listened to an interview of a staff person who was no longer in that ministry, but had been.

She advised the practice was not common at CIDA.  

The interview was on CBC.

this had not been historical practice.

 motheroffive, I didn't say every Cabinet used this system. I said that from what I learned (admittedly as a very lowly assistant to a rookie minister who ended up being dumped by Trudeau in '83 after an inauspicious run in the Cabinet) the Harper system I see being portrayed looks pretty much like the Trudeau system of the early 80's in terms of how recommendations move from the bureaucracy to the Cabinet. Having recently read Chretien's memoirs and his description of how he organized his government, his system seemed similar to Trudeau's (except that he mostly did away apparently with the Cabinet Committee system, which seems to me to leave a lot of work to the full Cabinet.) So I'm just saying that this seems (with a bit of tinkering by each new PM) to be the federal system. Each province undoubtedly has its own procedure. How's that relevant to a federal decision?

I'm just saying - again - that the process works fine. It's the decision of the players to deceive and to make the process seem to say something other than what it did that's the problem.

(BTW, changing the form to allow the minister to check a box saying "Agree" or "Disagree" with a bureaucratic recommendation doesn't work in this system. Recommendations go the the Cabinet from ministers, not from the bureaucracy - because once something goes to Cabinet it's automatically and immediately policital. "Agree" or "Disagree" boxes would leave the recommendation as something coming from the bureaucrats with the particular minister merely expressing an opinion. But recommendations go to Cabinet from ministers, not bureaucrats. And the addition of a "NOT" or something similar to the last line of a recommendation is the sign to the Cabinet that the minister disagreed with the bureaucrats, which might be grounds for another member of the Cabinet to say "I want to discuss this further rather than just rubber-stamping it.")

Interesting, then, Pinga. Did she explain in the interview how CIDA recommendations go to the Cabinet, then? Quite honestly, I have an admittedly bizarre personal interest in the structures of government, so if CIDA operates outside the normal system I'd be interesting in finding out more about that.

 She said that if the minister didn't approve, then they would simply not sign, or write an explanation.  There is no need for the form to go with no funds.  It would simply be rejected back to the group.

In addition, she said it would be unusual for it not to come back for negotiation...ie, fund x amount, or reduce by _______, or change the languague of the support.

My sense from the interview was she was astounded by the lack of following of normal protocol.  

 OK. I can see that. And yes, a minister wouldn't have to submit a proposal they disagreed with, although it would seem to me that a decision not to fund an agency that's been receiving funding would be a change in policy and would need Cabinet approval and not just a rejection by an individual minister, which is why I assumed Oda submitted it to Cabinet with a negative recommendation. She (understandably) wanted the responsibility for rejecting funding put on the whole Cabinet and not just on her shoulders.

Interesting.

 i'm trying to remember when it was on....i think around 2pm  ET  maybe? i went out to grab a late lunch..and I think it was on then.

 I suspect harper put her up to it... I think he should resign!

What is interesting about discussion on such social media as this is how we eaily talk past one another.  We get caught up on side issues that are important to us and argue about them.

What I see after reading all the replies is this:  My outrage of the cut in funding which is shared by all, This colors our responses; the fact that she lied; the process and right of government to make decisions, even those we find outragous; the role of the bureacratic people, and once they make their recommentation that is the end of their role; then the attempt of the minister to 'blame' or try to say she was only following recommendations, which is added to her lying and thus makes her even more dishonorable.

I found steve's the clearest tracing of how the minister is dishonorable and how now Harper stands by the lie.  Of course there is the added aspect of how the conservatives have handled the whole affair and their rejection another reason to work to throw them out of office.

 Bob Rae is now alleging that Harper ordered her to change the document - which is certainly possible since Harper's management style seems to be - shall we say - quite "hands-on" even when dealing with the minutiae of government decisions, although I suspect that it was just known by Oda that Harper didn't want Kairos funded and so she said "no." (or "NOT.") I doubt Harper had to "order" her to do this.