Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you very much.

Let's just see if we can clarify a few things here, because again, it seems there's a concerted attempt by the opposition to muddy the waters a little bit and continue down their narrative line that somehow the minister has misled the House.

First, Minister—and please correct me if I'm wrong—whenever a minister, in your case the minister responsible for CIDA, makes a decision, it then becomes the CIDA decision. Correct?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Correct.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

So when you have responded on numerous occasions saying it was a CIDA decision not to fund Kairos, that was an accurate statement. Correct?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Franks, professor of political science at Queen's, was here earlier today. He made a number of statements in his opening comments that he later apologized for, saying they were incorrect. They had many of the same misconceptions that the opposition has and perhaps members of the general public. They were factual inaccuracies. He stated that. He apologized for that.

I mention that because Mr. Laframboise and other members of the opposition seemed to be going down the same line, saying they believe you deliberately misled Parliament. I would point out just because the opposition thinks so or says so doesn't make it so.

Once again, did you at any time suggest, infer, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, try to give any impression whatsoever, to either Parliament or the general public, that the decision to not fund Kairos was a decision made by CIDA officials, or did you always, at every opportunity, tell them that it was your decision, and your decision alone, by your statements in the House and outside the House?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I can clearly testify that I have never—never—alluded to, referred to, or insinuated in any way that it was a CIDA decision in the frame that you've asked the question. I've always referred to a CIDA decision once the decision was made and became public. There's no intent to mislead, misdirect, or misinform in any way.

It was common practice. That is something that I do almost on a daily basis. I know what decisions I make. I make those decisions. Those decisions are mine alone. Once I've made those decisions, I automatically refer to them as CIDA decisions, because CIDA only makes recommendations and gives advice to the minister. The decisions are mine to make.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Biggs.

I mentioned that Mr. Franks was here earlier. Mr. Franks was concerned that the document we're all referring to here, this internal document--I referred to as an interoffice memo--the recommendation document, was a forgery because of the insertion of the word “not” and the minister's penned signature.

Ms. Biggs, did you or any of your officials feel, upon receiving that document back from the minister, that your advice had been altered or that in fact this was an attempt to deceive or to forge a document? Did you have any impression or opinion, at that time, that this was not anything more than the minister merely conveying her displeasure and disapproval of the recommendation?

[Margaret Biggs]

When a decision is made by the minister, I am usually notified about it verbally, because I'm in communication with the minister and her chief of staff at all times. In this case, her decision was delivered to me verbally, so to be honest, I wasn't focusing on the document.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

But you weren't concerned that it was a forged document.

[Margaret Biggs]

The minister's decision, to me, was clear. I didn't focus on the document.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

By my clock, Chair, we have about a minute left.

Minister Oda, you had said earlier that there were a couple of questions, one in particular from Mr. McKay, that were left unanswered, and you wanted to answer. You have an opportunity now. I'd certainly give that to you.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lukiwski.

I think I've provided the information. The question was this: When did I speak to and find out that Stephanie Machel, my chief of staff, actually was the person in my office who inserted the word “not” and instructed the officials to use the auto-pen? I've now answered saying that it was the day after I appeared at the foreign affairs committee.

That was the question. I wanted to make sure that I gave a fact. It's a factual answer, and it is the truth.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll go to Monsieur Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me go over the chronology again. On November 27, you decided, against the advice of your senior officials, not to fund KAIROS. That made waves. What made more waves is that, in Jerusalem on December 16, 2009, your colleague Jason Kenney said that the grant had been cancelled because KAIROS was anti-Semitic. In your statements, precisely to distance yourself from this charge of having made a purely ideological decision on the Conservatives' antiquated values, you state and you write that CIDA made the decision.

Let me remind you that, on April 23, 2010, you said this in the House:

The criteria for the funding for KAIROS is the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.

The criteria referred to must be CIDA's. But we know that, under CIDA's criteria, KAIROS would have been funded. So we are looking for other criteria, probably those of the Harper government, and your own. I would like to know which criteria you were referring to during question period in the House on April 23, 2010. Were they CIDA criteria? Let me re-read the sentence for you:

KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding.

Were you not referring to CIDA criteria though we know very well that CIDA's recommendation was positive? Please answer.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That is a very good question.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to be clear here that, as I indicated, I had no conversation about or knowledge of Minister Kenney's speech or even that he was going to Jerusalem.

Mr. Chair, regarding the criteria used, as I have indicated about the criteria we look at, there is no single criterion for these kinds of decisions--

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I am asking you if the criteria you were referring to were CIDA criteria or your own.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I would suggest that the criteria, the judgment, the recommendations, and the information that's gathered always should be not only from me but also from the agency. The best use of development dollars should be according to following best practices so that impacts can be achieved. We have that responsibility. I alone don't have that responsibility; it's a shared responsibility with the agency.

The agency, over many, many years, of course, has done good work, and what we are trying to do, as you understand, is focus it. We're trying to make sure that we maximize the results we are achieving.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Minister, will you concede that, because of the way in which it was written, everyone thought the criteria were CIDA's? This was your answer to question 106:

…the CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.

I do not accept the parliamentary secretary's interpretation. An overall assessment of a non-governmental organization's proposal looks at the whole proposal before the decision whether or not to fund it is made. The way in which this is written clearly indicates that the funding application was turned down as a result of CIDA criteria, and that is false. The application was turned down, by the minister and by the Prime Minister for strictly political reasons. That is the reality.

Furthermore, it is not just the opposition that considers that you expressed yourself very clearly. The document was not made public by CIDA, the government or the minister. It was made public under the Access to information Act. The document clearly shows that, in September, CIDA's recommendation was positive. According to CIDA's criteria, KAIROS' funding application should have been accepted.

You decided, for political reasons and because of the values you hold, but that I certainly do not share, to say no. That is not at issue in the slightest. So you added the word “not”.

Ms. Biggs, Madam Minister, what I still do not understand…

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Paquette…

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Why did you not at least initial the word “not“? That is what is done when dealing with a major contract. We are talking about $7 million, which is a lot of money for KAIROS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your time is up. I will give the minister a moment to respond.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I've been very, very clear, when we were in discussion of this decision, in all my articulations, in all my responses, and in all my public statements, that this was my decision. It is my responsibility to make those decisions. It was my decision and mine alone. I don't know how I can be clearer on that.

Regarding referencing the decisions I make as a CIDA decision, I think I have clearly answered questions to clarify how that confusion.... The common practice is that once the minister makes a decision, it becomes the government's decision, and it becomes the department's decision and the agency's decision.

Mr. Chair, to the third point, in response to whether a reference to a single criterion...these decisions cannot be made on a single criterion. Depending on the proposal, the nature of the proposal, the country in which the work is being undertaken...these all factor into the decision-making process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Martin, five minutes, please.