Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

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

Thank you.

Secondly, it seems there is a continuing misconception by members of the opposition, perhaps even members of the general public, that the term “CIDA decision” implies that it was the officials who made the recommendation or made the decision, not you. My understanding is that when you, as minister of CIDA, make the decision, it then becomes a CIDA decision. Correct?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That's correct.

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

So when you have always maintained that it was a CIDA decision, that was an accurate statement reflecting your decision. Correct?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes, as is common practice in government.

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

I would ask this question to Ms. Biggs. Do you support that from the minister, that interpretation, that a CIDA decision becomes a CIDA decision once the minister makes the final approval?

[Margaret Biggs, President, Canadian International Development Agency]

Once the minister makes a decision, it is the decision of the agency, yes.

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

So it then becomes a CIDA decision?

[Margaret Biggs]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Where there's confusion, Minister, quite frankly, is whether or not—and that's why I asked those two questions to begin with—you ever tried to mislead Parliament, the public, or anyone, in fact, as to your intentions. In other words, we've heard time and time again from members of the opposition, and this is reported in the media as well, that you had misrepresented yourself. Others have been even more critical. Mr. Martin, yesterday, during a panel show I did with him, said you lied on two occasions. Canadians may feel that you lied as well.

Can you please clearly and concisely state this before this committee? Was it ever your intention to imply, infer, or suggest that it was a CIDA official decision, in order to deflect criticism over not funding Kairos? Did you ever make those inferences, implications, and suggestions, or have you always stated it was solely your decision?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I have clearly indicated, every time I was asked, that it was my decision and my decision alone.

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

Have you ever, in question period or in answers to question papers, said anything different? Have you ever, at any time, stated that it was CIDA officials...?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

No, I have not. As indicated, I would have referred to it as a CIDA decision only, following common government practice, after the decision was made public. There was no intention to mislead in any way any committee or any member of the House. And in response to every question I have been asked on this, I have told you the truth--the facts. There was no intention to mislead in any way.

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

I would ask Ms. Biggs whether or not there was any confusion on her part or on the part of any of her officials as to the position of the minister. To make it more specific, Ms. Biggs, did you at any time feel that the minister was trying to mislead the public or Parliament by inferring or suggesting that it was your decision to not fund CIDA rather than the minister's and the minister's alone?

[Margaret Biggs]

I can speak to my own understanding, which was that the minister's decision to me was quite clear, sir.

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

Thank you. So there was no confusion. You did not feel at any time that the minister was trying to deceive you, the public, or Parliament.

[Margaret Biggs]

The minister's decision was very clear to me and to my department.

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

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to try to put you in a political hot seat. But the inference from the opposition continually has been that there was deception involved here, that the minister was not only trying to deceive Parliament but was trying to deceive you and your agency. Thank you for the clarity on that.

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Minister, you said that it was common practice in your department to handle internal documents in the manner you just suggested. In other words, if a document came across your desk recommending approval of a grant, and you disagreed, you would insert the word “not” or “not to be funded”, or something like that.

Could you please expand upon that and maybe let us know, and let the committee know, how many times, since you say this was common practice, you might have done this without ever causing the kind of furor and brouhaha we seem to have before us today? How common was this common practice?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That was the practice that was utilized. As the president of CIDA indicated at the foreign affairs committee, this was a common process that was undertaken. There was no confusion among CIDA officials. When the documents were returned to the department, they understood clearly that this was the only way available to the minister, considering the document format that was utilized at that time. It has since been corrected. There is clearly a place to indicate disagreement with recommendations from the department. The process was common. There were other incidents.

I would also ask the president, Ms. Biggs, to explain the format, the review they undertook, and the format of the documents we currently use.

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

I have a final question, before we get to Ms. Biggs, because I know we're short on time. Was this a common practice that was utilized by previous governments as well?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Ms. Biggs could answer to that. I don't have an accurate answer as to the practices of former governments.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Biggs.

[Margaret Biggs]

Chair, as I stated on December 9 at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, it was quite normal for recommendations to go to a minister and for a negative decision to be returned to the department. That was understood to be consistent with the practice of government.

The second point would be that I have now been made aware that there were some other examples of when the minister's decision not to agree with the department's recommendation was conveyed in the same manner.

Third, I initiated a review of all the formats for our memos shortly after I started as president. At the time this memo was written and this decision was taken, we were in the process of improving the memo format in order to have greater clarity around the information in the memo and the decision box.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to Monsieur Paquette for seven minutes, please.