Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Professor Franks, for being here again.
Professor Franks, I note you start off by saying in your opening statement that, as you understand what transpired, the basic facts are not seriously in dispute. With all due respect, I would challenge some of what you consider to be fact here, sir, and I just want to go over a litany of some of the statements you have made that I do not believe are factual.
Your second paragraph says that the minister first appears to have told the parliamentary committee that the department did not recommend the Kairos grant. That in fact, sir, is not true. At the December 9 committee meeting, Minister Oda—11 separate times—told the committee that it was her decision and her decision alone not to fund Kairos. At no time during that committee did she infer, imply, or state outright that it was a departmental decision. She has always stated it was hers. So I would suggest, sir, that your statement of what you consider to be fact is not factual.
In paragraph 3 you say:
It appears that when the senior public servants signed the letter, the handwritten “not” was not in it
—which is true—
and that the “not” was inserted later.
That is true.
In other words the altered document purports to indicate the public servants supported the opposite of the actual recommendation that they approved and signed. This becomes public knowledge.
That, sir, is not true. As Minister Oda has explained on several occasions, the document she received from CIDA was an internal document, not a parliamentary document. In other words, in lay person's language it would be like an inter-office memo. It was a memo from CIDA officials saying that in their opinion, they recommended funding of the grant to Kairos.
When the minister received it, she made her determination that she did not wish to fund Kairos. She told her staff to relay that information back to CIDA. Then she left it with the staff to do that. One of the staff members put the word “not” in there and sent it back so that the CIDA officials would know the minister did not want to fund Kairos. There was no misrepresentation. There was no deception involved there. In fact, Margaret Biggs, the president of CIDA, has stated before committee that she completely understood what the minister's intentions were. The “not” was, in basic terms, irrelevant. It was not meant to deceive, in other words.
I dispute your contention that it was intended to deceive. That is what paragraph 3 refers to.
In paragraph 4 you say, “In response to questions the minister says that she does not know how the offending 'not' got into the document”. That again is an incorrect statement. She never was asked the question: Do you know how it got there? She was asked the question: Do you know who inserted the “not”? She answered truthfully, saying, “No, I do not”. She did not know at that time because she had merely instructed her staff to convey her wishes back to the committee. Your statement there is not correct, in fact.
I just point those out, sir, not because I'm suggesting in any way, shape, or form that you are trying to cloud the issue. It's just that, unfortunately, you have an impression that perhaps many others have, and that's why the minister will be here for two hours today to fully clarify everything that happened, but it is important for this committee to understand that some of the statements you're putting down there purportedly as facts were in fact not as you indicate they were.