Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

--could I ask the chair to rule on the previous point of order? You offered your apologies. I sensed there was agreement for that course of action.

You didn't rule on the relevance of what Mr. Reid seems to be gearing up to, a filibuster type of presentation here. I believe it's irrelevant.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have one comment and then I'll be silent, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very quickly, get back to relevance, Mr. Reid, and we'll move on, I think.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This does deal with the propriety of your comments, which was the reason for the motion, and here is my question. It is my recollection that in the past you have shared conversations you've had with the Speaker. No one has found it objectionable. I am willing to bet--but only you can answer this question--that the Speaker did not say to you, “This is given to you in confidence and I don't want this shared with the committee”.

However, it seems reasonable, if that's the fear of Mr. Martin, that we go back and confirm that with the Speaker, and that would settle the matter as to whether this was in fact some sort of terrible breach of confidence, as Mr. McKay has suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I was going to suggest, Mr. Chair, that if Mr. Reid wants to get into another filibuster today, as they did yesterday, to let us know, because there might be other things that are more important that we could do outside this room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'd like us to move on, if we could, please.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is it the will of the committee that we move on, and has Mr. Martin dropped his motion?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We haven't heard you apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then I do, Mr. Martin, whatever it takes. Mea culpa. What other languages can I use? Let's move on.

Minister, welcome. I believe you have an opening statement. We have you as a guest for a couple of hours today. We'll take your opening statement and then go to rounds of questions.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm grateful for the opportunity today to respond to the Speaker's ruling to address the confusion surrounding the Kairos application. At the outset, first let me state that I take full responsibility for the confusion created, and I apologize for that.

I'm here today to explain to this committee and to the public why I initially didn't understand how my answers were creating confusion. I told the foreign affairs committee I did not know who specifically in my office had printed the word “not” on the Kairos departmental decision memo. I have also said that it was done at my direction. The confusion centres on how those two statements fit together. I'm here today to address that single matter of confusion, and the Speaker has given this specific mandate to this committee.

To fully explain this confusion I believe we must answer three questions. Why did I reject the Kairos application? How was my decision communicated to CIDA officials? And lastly, why didn't I elaborate further when I testified at the foreign affairs committee why I did not know who specifically inserted the word “not”?

Let me address the first question. Why did I reject the Kairos application? The Kairos application first came to me as a 19-page background document containing the CIDA staff analysis of the proposal and commentary from CIDA staff and Canadian ambassadors located in regions included in the proposal. CIDA officials also prepared a separate two-page decision memo for my signature. To be clear, these were internal documents from CIDA officials to me as the minister.

Before reaching a decision I spoke to CIDA officials and to my political staff. While both documents contained some positive aspects, they also contained aspects of concern to me. For example, over $880,000 was to be used for advocacy, training, media strategies, and campaign activities here in Canada. I believe that is not the best way to spend public funds intended to help those living in poverty in developing countries. We believe that CIDA's role is to make sure there's more food on the table for the hungry, more girls and boys in school, and more medicine in parts of the world that need it most.

We receive hundreds of proposals annually, but we cannot fund them all. My responsibility as minister is to prioritize those that best meet the objectives of Canadians and deliver value for aid dollars. So after careful consideration I decided to reject the Kairos application. At no time did I speak to Minister Kenny, the Prime Minister, or any staff from their offices, nor did I receive any advice or direction from them. The decision was mine and mine alone.

Now I will turn to the second question. How was my decision communicated to CIDA officials? To fully answer this question I think it's important to understand the process used at that time by CIDA to seek a decision from the minister. First, an internal background document like the one I referred to earlier is sent to the minister. As well, a separate decision memo is sent containing a summary, a departmental recommendation, and a line for the minister to sign. The practice is that officials ask my office to provide written responses to proposal recommendations, making clear my decision. When decision memos come to me they have already been signed by the president of CIDA and another CIDA official.

In the Kairos instance I spoke to both my staff and CIDA personnel over the course of two months before arriving at and then communicating my decision. In this case I explained my concerns and sought further information from CIDA. They knew I was not likely to approve the application. These facts are not in dispute by my staff, or by CIDA officials. After due deliberation, when I felt I had enough information about the proposal, I telephoned my chief of staff and informed her that I had decided to reject the application. I then gave her direction to follow through on my decision with the department.

As Minister of International Cooperation, whether I'm travelling or in Ottawa I have a duty and responsibility to oversee CIDA. Every decision I make has to be communicated back to CIDA officials, and often, upon my direction, I must rely on my staff to follow through on my decisions. I speak to one of my political staff, who then communicates my decisions to CIDA via the decision memo drafted by CIDA officials. To give you an idea of scope, last year I dealt with over 750 memos.

In December, when I appeared before committee on this issue, I did not know who specifically in my office inserted the word “not” or who operated the auto-pen. Subsequently, after that committee, my former chief of staff, Stephanie Machel, told me she inserted the word “not”, following the normal practice at that time. She then instructed one of two authorized departmental officials in my office to use the auto-pen--in this case Claudette Rioux--to mechanically sign the document.

Having a paper record of decisions is critical, and it's not always possible for me to personally sign a decision memo. As a result, my office uses an auto-pen to mechanically reproduce my signature when I am unable to personally sign a document. This is a device employed by ministers across government, and it's my understanding that previous governments have used the same process.

When I made the CIDA decision, CIDA decision memos didn't provide an option whereby I could disagree with CIDA recommendations. Decision memos simply presented the recommendation of CIDA officials and offered a signature line. To overcome the absence of a disagree option, if I made a decision to disagree, my staff would insert the word “not” or “do not” in the recommendation line. However, to an outside observer, not knowing the process followed it might appear that someone who had earlier signed the document was unaware that the word “not” was inserted. That is not the case because in fact the same signed decision memo is returned to the very same officials who had initially signed the memo.

There has never been confusion regarding this practice. These decision memos are intended for internal use only, and CIDA officials did not raise any concerns about how my decision was communicated to them. Also, as is common practice in government, a ministerial decision is thereafter publicly referred to as the decision of the government or the relevant department or agency. I have apologized for the confusion and know now that I should have provided a fuller explanation of this process.

This then brings us to the third question: why didn't I elaborate further when I testified at the foreign affairs committee that I did not know who specifically inserted the word “not”? Put another way, why did I answer the precise question asked instead of providing the information that the committee was trying to ascertain?

When I told the committee that I didn't know who had printed the word “not” on the Kairos application, I did not know who specifically in my office had printed the word “not” and had signed the document. In hindsight, I wish I had been clearer in my answer by explaining the process I've described today and had offered to give the names once I had the information. My answer made sense to me then, because I knew the usual process undertaken. There was no intention to mislead the committee members. I now realize that from someone else's perspective it was confusing, as the Speaker has said.

People listening to my answers might have thought that I signed the document and, after that, someone had added the word “not”. That didn't occur to me because I knew that wasn't what could have happened. At the time, I did not see the confusion that my answers would cause, and I apologize for creating the confusion.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, my original answers were truthful, accurate, and precise, but were not clear. I'm here today to rectify any remaining confusion.

I have a great respect for Parliament and the members I serve with, including the Speaker, and I have faith in parliamentary procedures.

Mr. Chair, I never have--nor would I ever--jeopardized my reputation or my integrity. I have served my constituents and my country honourably with that same integrity. At no time would I ever intend to mislead anyone.

Thank you, and I look forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go right to questions.

Mr. McKay for seven minutes, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for those remarks.

It begs the question as to why for the last three months we've had to pursue this issue. You've had, really, since December 9 to give the clarifying remarks you've just given.

Why wouldn't you have just simply, once the confusion started to arise--confusion, as you describe it--said what you said today? I'm assuming that what you said is that Stephanie Machel, your chief of staff, signed the document. Is that correct?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That's what I just articulated. It was my chief of staff at that time, Stephanie Machel. As I indicated in my opening presentation, I was unaware that my answers were confusing and were giving rise to confusion.

I recognize now that my answers could have been more complete. I could have explained the process, and that's why I'm here today, to answer all of your questions with the truth and the facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry, Minister, but, Mr. Martin, did you have a point of order?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think we would benefit from a copy of the minister's comments as well. The minister's staff seem to be circulating them to all the media. If they're available to the general public, why doesn't this committee have the benefit of having a copy of it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Martin, I don't know that because I've not been given one, so--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Could you ask if we might have one, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll find that out.

Minister, would you like to finish your answer?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You stopped the clock, did you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We did.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Minister, that wasn't the question. The question is, why did it take three, four months, 90-odd questions in question period, a couple of privilege motions, and endless debate in order to get us to this point, where you finally yield up a name, Stephanie Machel?

I don't understand. Given that the level of confusion, after you and I first had our exchange, was in fact quite heightened by your responses, why didn't you take the opportunity, either in the House or outside of the House, to say what you just said?