- Harper Simply Can Not Be Trusted to Do the Right (Morally) Thing

Posted: 10:06 AM on February 17, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Can Tory ministers
get away with lying? Liberals think not, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, February 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/can-tory-ministers-get-away-with-lying-liberals-think-not/article1911141/

The document at the heart of the Oda scandal states that:

". . .

RECOMENDATION - That you sign below to indicate that you [not] approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years for the approved program"

Then right below it is purported to be signed by:
"Naresh Singh, A/Vice President, Canadian Partnership Branch",
"Margaret Bi[not clear]ggs, President:
"Beverley Oda, Minister of International Cooperation"

It is on the letter head of the: "Canadian International Development Agency, President"

(see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/amended-cida-document/article1903050/?from=1911141)

The first thing to note is that:

the "not" has been inserted by hand (I know, I know, 'tell me something I don't know').

But, what is astounding is that given the importance of this such a legal document the 'not' has not initial and dated

There is no indication on the face of the document that any of the three signatories approved of the change.

Given that it is a declaration of their states of mind it is hard to understand anyone changing it without notifying them first and getting their approval to the changes. This is done on legal documents by initialing and dating the change.

Second:

The statement is not Bev Oda approving the funding it is a declaration that three people are thereby indicating they are approving the funding.

Altering this statement suggests that the three signatories in fact are of the opposite position.

It is a simple matter to just ask them if they approved, at the time of the changes, the changes to the document or if they even knew.
Apparently Bev Oda at Committee stated that she didn't know who did it.

What about the other two, what do they have to say.

According to Harper, a Minister is able to unilaterally make such a decision to refuse funding in a totally arbitrary and capricious fashion, totally ignoring any and all objective considerations to the contrary (this is highly doubted - even the PM does not have the power to simply do whatever he pleases - unless you let them get away with it).

But they ought not to do it relying on such a document as altered.

And, if it were at her arbitrary discretion why would she need such an altered document or rely on it.

Also, Bev Oda stating at Committee that she did not know who altered it a very narrow statement of denial. It is not hard to imagine that the Minister might be shielded from knowing so they can give such answer. If it was changed by the PMO she might be able to say she doesn't know who, in actuality, changed it, although she may be aware of the ultimate source.

Perhaps Oda, or whomever else is in a position to actually say, should have been asked what happened to the document after she and the other two had signed it and into whose hands it fell. It seems to me that a Minister has a duty and obligation to be forthcoming with information in order to shed light on the circumstance and foster transparency, as opposed to obscuration and obfuscation.

There are a lot of unanswered questions that all Canadians have a right to know.

Harper stonewalling is simply reprehensible and indicates, yet again, the Con's uber partisan approach to everything and that when push come to shove, Harper can not be trusted to do the right (morally) thing, to put his obligations as PM above grasping and maintaining power.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html