Evidence of meeting #51 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decision.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
As I've explained, I recognize now the confusion that has been created. I'm here to answer your questions.
Mr. Chair, I felt that it was important that Canadians understand how their tax dollars are being spent. My response has always indicated that I felt that was my primary responsibility, and that's why I'm here today to answer the questions, to give you the facts, and to give a full explanation.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Minister, you left the confusion hanging for three months. Parliament had to pursue it quite vigorously just to get you to this point.
When Stephanie Machel used the arm on your behalf, did she at the same time insert the “not”?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
I have since learned that she inserted the “not” and then instructed the CIDA official, who was authorized to utilize the mechanical device on my behalf. She has indicated she was the one who inserted the word “not” onto the document—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Did she do it at the same time she signed the document on your behalf?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
As I indicated, there were two people. She inserted the “not”; she then transferred the document to the CIDA official to affix my mechanical signature.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
What I don't understand, Minister, is whether in fact you signed the document or had the document signed on your behalf, and actually at one point approved of the grant?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Is there a gap in time between when you signed the document, which would have approved the grant, and the insertion of the “not”?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
I want to make sure that we're accurate. I did not personally sign the document, as I clearly explained. That was done through my direction, through Stephanie Machel, that an official of CIDA, authorized to use the automated device, affix my signature there.
I made the decision, and I clearly stipulated that I made the decision. I gave directions to my chief of staff, and she then, after committee, told me that she put the word “not” onto the document and had the document signed automatically.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
But that wasn't the question, Minister. The question, Minister, was this. Is there a gap in time between when you approved of the grant and when you disapproved of the grant?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
I did not approve the grant, Mr. McKay. Clearly, I've stipulated this many times when I appeared before—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Then the only answer, Minister, in order to avoid even more confusion—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let the chair interrupt for second, if I can, please.
Mr. McKay, you were not here yesterday. We've solved a lot of the ability of witnesses to answer questions and to keep a little bit of decorum here by your addressing your questions through the chair and the witnesses addressing their answers back. Then we don't get into the interruptions.
So let's try that again today, folks, if we can.
Liberal
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
—the minister whether there is a gap in time between when you approved and when you disapproved of this grant?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
Again, Mr. Chair, I reiterate what are the facts and what is the truth: at no time did I approve the grant. As I indicated, I rejected the proposal from Kairos. I made the decision. It was my decision. Once I made that decision, I then talked to my chief of staff. At no time did I or anyone at CIDA approve the grant. CIDA made a recommendation to the minister. I made the decision to reject the proposal. At no time was there an approval of that proposal.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Why, then, did you leave it out there in the order paper questions? When you say, in response to Mr. Pearson's order paper question and Madame Jennings order paper question, “The CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion”, why did you leave it out there, the misinformation that this was a CIDA decision, when in fact it wasn't a CIDA decision?
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
It was not misinformation. As I've stipulated in my presentation—as is common practice, not only of our government but of previous governments, and I would suggest other governments as well—once the minister who has the statutory authority to make decisions, particularly in this case on the utilization of taxpayers' dollars, makes the decision, then it becomes and is referred to publicly as the decision of the government or the department or agency it relates to. There was no misleading. It's common practice. It's the way things are done normally when you are in government. Also, the decision of the minister becomes the decision of the government, becomes the decision of the department, becomes the decision of the agency.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. McKay.
We'll go to Mr. Lukiwski for seven minutes.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you very much.
And thank you, Minister, for being here.
Let's clear up a couple of things right off the top before I get to what I think is the real question here.
Just to try to get it perfectly clear for Mr. McKay and others in the opposition who don't seem to understand, correct me if I'm wrong here. What I heard you say, Minister, is that the word “not” was inserted on an internal document before your signature arm went on the document. Correct?
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
So hopefully Mr. McKay was listening to that. I know he's in conversation with a staff member. The “not” was inserted and then the signature arm...which clearly indicates your signature did not approve the Kairos funding.