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.
10:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Mr. Chair, I don't think my opinions are what matters—
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'm asking you the question. You don't have any option. This is the thing.
Perhaps the chair could remind the witnesses that in this Westminster Parliament you do not have the right to remain silent. The offsetting right is that what you say can't be used against you. You have to answer the question. It's not optional.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
When you're asking the opinion of witnesses, I think they do have the right to not offer the opinion.
You are looking for facts, Mr. Martin. I think you can ask those, but when you're asking for opinion, I think you're beyond....
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Why did you not just return the document?
You left the document for two months. Why didn't you just not sign it, if you were trying to cancel the funding to Kairos?
Surely, that document for funding required your signature. You could have avoided all of this controversy by letting it die, letting it gather dust, and never dealing with the damn thing.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Chair, I think I responded to that question when it was posed to me by Mr. Paquette.
I will again reiterate the facts in response to Mr. Martin. They will not change, because it is the truth. They are the facts.
The request from CIDA was to return in writing a document to reflect the minister's decision. The common practice at that time, limited by the format that was used at that time, was to insert the word “not” or “do not”.
10:55 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
That only happens in your department. You have one screwed up department, believe me, because that's a terrible way to conduct business.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Martin, your time is well done. I'm allowing the minister to answer your last question. Then we'll move on to the next questioner.
Minister, end the response so that we can move to the next one.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
As I said, I think the record will show that I answered that question.
If there are more specific details that Mr. Martin would like to ask of me regarding that, I'm sure in the next round we could get to those.
Also, Mr. Chair, if I could, Mr. Martin asked me when Ms. Machel would have followed through on my decision, or when I would have talked to Ms. Machel. I talked to Ms. Machel the next day, after my appearance at the foreign affairs committee. At that time, she told me she had inserted the word “not” onto the document and asked for the automated signature to be applied.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Minister. Thank you for coming to testify before the committee this morning.
Madam Minister, I have a copy of the Order Paper in my hands, containing a question to which you replied that CIDA recommended that the funding for KAIROS be cut.
Madam Minister, is it not reasonable to believe that you wanted us to understand that the decision came from CIDA?
11 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Proulx, no, I think I've given, actually, the facts here. The CIDA recommendation....
I acknowledge--it was clearly recognized--that CIDA's recommendation was to fund Kairos. I was very clear also that I made the decision not to accept the recommendation of CIDA but to reject the proposal before us.
On the document that you're referring to, as I've explained, common government practice means--as has been testified to by the president of CIDA--that once the minister makes the decision, it becomes the decision of the agency.
So I've never misled, or intended to mislead, anyone.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Minister, here is the reply to the question: “l'[a]gence a déterminé que la proposition [...] de KAIROS ne correspondait pas aux priorités du gouvernement.”
If you were the one who said no, would the reply not have been that “the minister” had told the agency to deny funding?
With the wording of the sentence: “l'[a]gence a déterminé que la proposition”, it seems clear to me that you were trying to put the blame on the agency.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
No, there was never an intention.... We work very well with the department. We have a clear understanding on how decisions are relayed. My decisions are relayed back to the department. There was no misunderstanding, and clearly there was no confusion.
As I have also stipulated this morning, now I realize that confusion from...someone not familiar with our practice...it may have led to confusion.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you.
Good morning, Ms. Biggs.
You have worked in the Public Service for a long time. I am not trying to say that you are old, but that you have a lot of experience in the Public Service, because you have worked with other ministers and in other departments and agencies.
You signed this funding recommendation and, subsequently, someone added the word “not”. Don't you think that that comes down to putting words in your mouth that you did not want to say?
In your experience, what happens in other departments or agencies when a minister receives a recommendation that he or she does not want to accept? Is the common practice not for the minister to just cross out the recommendation document itself or simply to return it with no signature. Isn't that the common practice?
11 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Chair, as the deputy head, what's important from an accountability point of view is that the analysis and advice coming from the department to the minister is clear and that it goes to the minister.
Secondly, it's important that the decision and the direction from the minister to the department is clear.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I accept that, Madam. But my question was whether, in your experience elsewhere or in other aspects of your career, it is common practice for a minister simply to return a document unsigned or even to go one step further and cross it out, to make sure that there are no misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
11:05 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
As I've said previously, my recommendation to the minister on this issue before us was clear. The decision from the minister back to the department on this issue was also clear.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I apologize to the witness, but that's not the question. I would like the witness to answer my question.
For a recommendation the minister doesn't want to approve or doesn't want to accept, is it not common practice for that minister to either strike that sheet of paper on which the recommendation is made or simply return the recommendation paper “upstairs”, as they say in the department, without signing it?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
It's important, as the deputy, to make sure that I understand what the minister's decision was. The best practice—and I think the minister would agree to this—would be to have ”do not agree” written below the signature line. That would be clearer. However, the minister's decision in this regard on this issue was never in doubt or confusing for me.