Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

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

You haven't answered my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht, five minutes, please.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister and Ms. Biggs for being here today, and I also want to thank CIDA for the fantastic work they do on behalf of Canadians around the world. I think every Canadian can be proud of the work that CIDA does in developing countries, alleviating suffering for literally millions of people. I just want to get that on the record.

There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of NGOs in Canada. I'm assuming that virtually every MP here has met with NGO representatives in their riding with great ideas to address human suffering. I have three questions related to the number of requests that must come into your department. I don't know what the number of requests is, but could you tell us, Minister or Ms. Biggs, how many proposals do come to your office in a given year? Is it possible for your office to approve every single submission that is given by NGOs? Finally, do you think Canadians believe that you should simply rubber stamp every one of those great applications that comes across your desk?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Chair, let me answer two of the three questions, and I'll allow Ms. Biggs to answer the question regarding the number of proposals that come in.

Mr. Albrecht, I don't mean to correct you, but there are more than hundred; there are thousands—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Even better.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

—of development and aid NGOs in Canada. As you point out, they all do very good work. It is not possible for CIDA to fund all of the requests that come before it. That's why my role, as the minister, is very important: to ensure that we're using development and aid dollars to achieve the best results; to use the dollars in a way that Canadians expect of us; to ensure that those dollars are going to the people who we intend to help and to make sure that we're going to have a long-term sustainable result that will make a difference in their lives. This is my responsibility as the minister and this is what I base my decisions on.

I will now ask Ms. Biggs to respond to your question regarding the actual number of proposals.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

[Margaret Biggs]

Chair and member, I don't actually know the exact number of proposals that the agency receives every year. With respect to Canadian non-governmental organizations, there are over 500 or 600 in Canada with whom CIDA has had a relationship. So that would be a base number for this particular program.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Okay.

I want to just follow up, Mr. Chair, on that question, then.

If there are 500 or 600 NGOs that CIDA has had a relationship with over the years, for any given NGO that has had funding from CIDA for 5, 10, 15 years, is it reasonable for them to expect that in any given year they would automatically be renewed? If that is a given, to me it would seem that with the myriad number of requests that come across your desk, it would be impossible to ever open the door to NGOs that are doing good work and that may actually have a plan to address human need in other areas.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Albrecht, I would like to answer that question, since it's my responsibility to ensure that Canadian funds are being used in the best way possible and that we're getting value for our aid dollars.

Previous experience would be of benefit, with knowledge of the countries to be served, best practices, and how to achieve results. However--and this has been clearly stated--our government does not believe there is an entitlement by NGOs to continuous funding from CIDA. We're looking for results.

Every organization, if they had been previously supported by CIDA, is assessed against the results that were achieved by the previous funding, the proposal as to what they look for as objectives to achieve, and how they're going to make a difference. Because you received CIDA funding previously, there should be no expectation that the funding will continue. It's assessed fairly against results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. Your time has expired.

Thank you, Minister, for that.

Monsieur Laframboise, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Madam Minister, last April 23, in reply to question 106 on the Order Paper, you said: …the CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.

Is that your answer? Does it reflect the Order Paper?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

If you're reading from the actual transcript, Mr. Laframboise, I certainly won't dispute that. However, I would like to have an opportunity to explain why the answer was given and phrased in such a way.

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

No, that's fine.

You said that there is some confusion. But last February 14, you made this statement in the House of Commons: If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

You acknowledged, at least in connection with your reply to question 106 on the Order Paper, that your language could have been misinterpreted and that it could be concluded that CIDA and you were of one mind. Is that the reply in your statement?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

If that is the interpretation that was taken from that response, I again refer you to the fact of government policy, that decisions become--

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

Ms. Oda, I read the statement you made in the House last February 14. Speaker Milliken referred to it in his ruling on March 9. He quoted you verbatim. I don't think that you will be going back on that.

In your reply last April 23, you mentioned that CIDA's decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on an overall assessment. That seems to say that the decision was CIDA's. That is the important point. In his ruling on March 9, Speaker Milliken said: …in view of the very serious allegations regarding the conduct of a minister, who, as a result, has been subjected to harsh and public criticism which has been potentially damaging to her reputation.

Therein lies the problem, Madam Minister. It is not that you said no. It is the way in which you tried to pass the blame to CIDA. This morning, Emeritus Professor Franks told us this:[I simply] observe that she has, as I understand it, admitted to having misled the House. As the lawyers would put it: res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

The distinguished professor has no partisan axe to grind. The fact that you tried to pass the blame to CIDA is very serious. You corrected yourself later. You said it yourself. The problem is that you are telling us that there is some confusion, while a distinguished professor says that you deliberately misled the House. That is what I feel you did, Madam Minister, and it is very serious. There is only one thing for you to do and you should do it: you should resign. As Professor Franks says, you misled the House.

Do you agree with the distinguished experts who say that you misled the House?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I will not agree. There was no intention to mislead the House. I gave the facts. I used common phraseology.

If phrasing could have been better, if it led to confusion, yes, I will say that I could have done a better job of making sure the phrasing and response actually reflected and was in response to the information that was trying to be ascertained. There was no intention to mislead the House when I referred to the CIDA decision.

As I have clearly articulated, once the decision is made, it's common practice...and I would thereafter always refer to any decision that I made as a CIDA decision as the agency's decision.

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

Ms. Oda, you do not understand. This is not a matter for your interpretation. You misled the House. That is the reality. The fact that you do not grasp it is even worse, Madam Minister. You are not worthy of the position you hold. The reality is that it that you did not see that you were trying to pass the blame to CIDA, though that is what you did. You tried to correct the situation, but the harm had already been done, madam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Laframboise--

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

The harm had been done to democracy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

--your time is up.

I will give the minister a short time to answer that.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I've said, I would never intentionally mislead the House. I have come today with the facts and the truth.

Mr. Chair, this is, as I say, a very serious situation that I find myself in. That's why I'm here before committee, to give you the truth, to give you the facts. I don't diminish in any way the seriousness.

I would believe that upon hearing the facts and the truth in a fair and open meeting today, you will find that I have not intended to mislead the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Martin, for five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, through you, the minister would have us believe that there is no harm and no foul in all of this. She comes here with a sort of O.J. Simpson defence, this Hail Mary pass that's trying to salvage something of her credibility and to laugh it off as a harmless mistake, as some innocent misunderstanding.

I mean, honestly, what planet do you live on, Minister?

You've painted a picture, by your actions, that Kairos' funding was denied because CIDA thought they shouldn't get the funding. That's the picture you've painted. It's the fabrication that you've allowed to stand and that you've vigorously defended right up until this moment, where this tribunal may well find you in contempt of Parliament.

You've now had this miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus that all of a sudden you do remember--that, ah, yes, it was Stephanie Machel who you instructed to insert the word “not”. The very day after you misled the foreign affairs committee, you learned the facts: who actually did this.

It doesn't paint a very good picture, Minister.

Reasonable people would conclude that Kairos lost its funding because Margaret Biggs and others said they didn't believe Kairos should be funded any longer, whereas we believe Kairos lost its funding because of some ideological prejudice on behalf of Jason Kenney, who somehow got it in his mind that Kairos is anti-Semitic, which is insane.

Now, listen, you've said that it's common practice to insert “not” or “do not” because there is no option on your forms for “minister disagrees”.

By the way, I learned this because I managed to get a copy of your presentation. You gave it to the clerk in one official language, which is not very helpful to us because she's not allowed to circulate it. I had to get a photocopy of the stuff that your guys distributed to the media.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Martin, we do have the opening statement in both official languages.