Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Oda and Ms. Biggs, for appearing before the committee.

First, I have to say that the confusion you are talking about is not relevant for us. We have never questioned the fact that it was your decision and your government's decision. We have never challenged the fact that the government is entitled to make its political choices, even if we disagree with those choices. Our problem is that the word "not" was added after CIDA officials had signed the document, as you confirmed. This would allow us to infer that CIDA's management was agreeing to the government's decision. That's the first thing. Here's the problem. The problem is not determining whether it was your decision or not; we know that it was your decision or the decision of the Prime Minister.

First, adding the word "not" to the document that had already been signed implies that CIDA's management was in agreement. Second, you made a statement that contradicted your response on April 23, 2010 to a question on the order paper, namely, that it was CIDA's decision not to fund KAIROS. So, it was false.

The confusion comes not from the fact that we didn't quite understand whether you were the one who put in the word "not", because you knew who had done it. That isn't the problem. The problem in this matter comes from the fact that, for weeks, you and your parliamentary secretary let it be understood that CIDA's management approved the government's and your decision. There's the problem. That's what we're trying to understand.

First and foremost, why not simply refuse to sign the document? The two CIDA officials signed the document in September and you received it in November. Why not simply refuse to sign it if you didn't agree with the officials, rather than falsify the document and then sign it? Why didn't you content yourself with not signing the document, which seems quite normal to me? If the minister doesn't sign, there would be no grant, so the $7 million would be cancelled, and we wouldn't have this scheme before us. I have here this sheet that has made the rounds.

So, I'm waiting for your response.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

First of all, let me thank you for the question, and let me also apologize if members of this committee did not receive a copy of my opening presentation, because in that presentation I clearly indicated that it was a request from CIDA officials to the minister's office and myself to return the document and to indicate clearly in writing the decision I would have made.

In the case where I may have disagreed with the recommendations made by the CIDA officials, this was common practice. It was the way we indicated and relayed the minister's decision. The format at that time, as was explained earlier, did not allow for any other way to indicate in writing, following the request for decisions to be relayed to them in writing. Consequently, this was the practice undertaken at that time, and I'm here to explain that.

I explained it in my opening presentation and I clearly have indicated this was the way that was undertaken. As was indicated, it was normal. As indicated, the CIDA officials clearly understood that this was a way of reflecting my decision back to them. They expressed no concerns. There was no confusion on their part.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Let's just say that I'm having a lot of trouble following you. The document was signed by two CIDA officials on September 25, 2009. So, two months later, you took cognizance of the document. You had your chief of staff add the word "not" and then you signed it. You sent the document back to CIDA management.

First, how is it that the CIDA officials didn't change the date if they read the document on November 20 or 25? At that time, you let it be understood that you had approved the department's decision at the outset. I have a lot of trouble believing that.

Secondly, why not take the time to rewrite the memo to make sure that the signatures were provided with full knowledge of the situation? There's something that isn't quite right there. This is a little too amateurish for us to believe you.

Why not rewrite a clean memo, with signatures that would be dated when the decision was made, which would be around November 17, 2009? Ms. Biggs, why didn't you completely change the date given that, when you read the document, you were supporting the government's decision again? Something just doesn't add up.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I disagree.

I can understand that there's confusion; I can understand that there may be misunderstandings that have arisen by a very crude process, as I've indicated in my opening presentation. However, again I reiterate that this was the way in which we would relay ministerial decisions to the department. I've also been very clear, as has Ms. Biggs, that this was the normal practice. I've also indicated that there was no confusion from the department, understanding that a recommendation came to the minister, the minister made a decision, and consequently, as requested, a response in writing reflecting the minister's decision was passed back to the department. Everyone who was involved understood what the process was, understood that it was the minister's decision, and understood that this was the practice undertaken at that time.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

If I may, I would like to conclude by adding the following.

From everything we have learned, my interpretation of the facts is this: you signed off on the recommendation made by the senior officials at CIDA. When the Prime Minister found out, he told you that he disagreed. You then had to falsify the document and, ever since then, you have been caught up in all these excuses of yours. I think that, not only have you lied to the House, you have also falsified a document. As a minister, you should accept your responsibility and resign. End of story.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I've indicated very clearly, speculations on the part of members are unfounded. I've come here today willingly, looking for an open and balanced hearing, willing to respond with the truth and with the facts. Speculations are truly unfounded, and as I've clearly, clearly stated, there was no direction, advice, or conversation with the Prime Minister or any of his staff regarding the Kairos application.

It would be unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister or other ministers, who are very busy on their own part, would have discussion on every specific application. As I've indicated, I dealt with more than 750 proposals and recommendations coming to me last year, and I have also indicated that there was no advice or direction from any other office. I asked for advice from my own staff, my own political staff, I asked for information from CIDA staff, and I concluded that this was not in the best interest of Canadians because I believed that our Canadian aid dollars should be used to reduce poverty and to improve the lives of those living in poverty in developing countries.

Mr. Chair, let me say that I am here with the truth and the facts, and I cannot address false speculations in any other way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, Minister, I don't know if I can express how frustrated we are that after three months of grilling you, after three months of questions in question period and appearances before parliamentary committee, now, at the eleventh hour, with a gun to your head, one hour away from being one of the few people in history to be found in contempt of Parliament, we finally find out who this phantom flunky is who signed the document. You were asked that question specifically, and I take you at your word that maybe at the last committee hearing you didn't know who signed it, although I find it hard to believe that she was your chief of staff.

When did you learn that Stephanie Machel, or whatever her name is, is the one who signed it? And why didn't you reveal that to avoid this tribunal today?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you, let me say that I've come here today willing to cooperate—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, no. When? Date? Date?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

—and to provide—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When did you learn?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I have indicated—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Minister, excuse me just one second.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Martin, we'll have a little decorum—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm not going to let her use up my seven minutes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've stopped the clock.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

—regurgitating her—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've stopped the clock while I'm making this dissertation to you.

I shared with the others before we started—and I know you were here yesterday. Please try to go through the chair rather than arguing directly with witnesses.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It will look a lot better, it will work a lot better, and you'll get straighter answers.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, was Kairos ever discussed at any cabinet meeting or any subcommittee of cabinet? Was the funding of Kairos ever discussed at any cabinet meeting or any subcommittee of cabinet, yes or no? I don't want cabinet confidences, just yes or no.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Very clearly, I can say, in all honesty, with the facts, that no, it was not discussed at any cabinet meeting or sub-cabinet meeting. But Mr. Chair--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Where were you, through the chair--