I just want to get on the record that while I totally agree that all documents presented before a parliamentary committee should be in both official languages—that's a given, and I accept that, and I agree with that, frankly—I want to point out that there has been a myriad of requests about more information regarding the purchase of the F-35s. As the chair pointed out, I think, unless I heard incorrectly, this information is relatively new to the government. It was compiled from nations like the United States and other primarily English-speaking nations.
There's no insult here. I sense the tone from people saying that this was disrespectful to the committee.
I think this was just an attempt to say there has been information requested and we've received some; it's not in both official languages, but if you'd like to get your hands on these documents and start examining them--as you have been requesting for months now--they are available to you.
That, I think, is the point the chair was trying to make. Certainly it's the government's position that if you want to see the information, it's available. If you don't want to see it until it's translated, fine; your will will be done.
:
Mr. Chair, I am astonished by Mr. Lukiwski's comments. There are seven million francophones in this country. We've been waiting for answers from the government on this matter for four months. It would seem that Mr. Lukiwski thinks that it’s appropriate to deliver in one official language documents that were requested over four months ago now. It would be appalling if he dared insist that these documents be accepted now. It would be to the detriment of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Chair, was any explanation given to you whatsoever when these documents were forwarded to this committee? Is this pursuant to the requests made to the government on October 6, deadline November 24, to return these documents? Is this all the information that parliamentarians have been asking for now for over four months?
After hearing for two days from you, Chair, and rightly so, and from ministers, that this committee was not seized whatsoever with the F-35 issue, even though it formed part of the opposition day motion and the Speaker's ruling, can you help us understand why this is happening today, on a Friday, four months after the request was made, and not in bilingual form in compliance with committee or government rules?
It just smacks of desperation, Mr. Chair. What's going on?
:
Again, I haven't gone through them myself to look at what is and what isn't. It's my understanding--
Mr. Marcel Proulx: [Inaudible—Editor].
The Chair: Yes, I understand, Mr. Proulx. I just used midnight to six for sleep, and I should not have. It won't happen again.
The committee will move on from there.
Just one other real quick thing. I'd like to thank this committee for the hard work it has done over the last couple of days.
I had a little bit of a health issue yesterday afternoon near the end of the committee and I wanted to thank in public Monsieur Proulx for first of all noticing that I was having a bit of distress, and his understanding and help with it.
Mr. Lukiwski also did a fantastic job of keeping me on track at a time when I really wanted to get out of here, and it worked.
I thank the committee for its indulgence. We'll see if we can't just get through a whole day of work without anything happening again.
Monsieur Proulx, my gratitude to you. It will be forever in my heart that all parliamentarians are great people.
Thank you.
:
I began my remarks by trying to identify the steps in the process. I'll just go through what has happened and then I'll raise the question.
As I understand what transpired, the basic facts are not seriously in dispute. Events proceeded more or less as follows.
One, a letter was submitted to a House of Commons committee, and the letter, signed by both the minister and the two senior public servants, had a handwritten “not” inserted into it, which reversed its meaning.
Two, the minister appears at first to have told a parliamentary committee that the department did not recommend that particular grant, as the “not” in the letter indicates.
Three, it appears that when the senior public servants signed the letter, the handwritten “not” was not in it, and it was inserted later.
Four, in response to questions, the minister said she did not know how the offending “not” got into the document.
Five, the minister also later admitted that the offending “not” was put in on her instructions, but she does not know who put it there.
Six, opposition members accused the minister of deliberately misleading the House.
Seven, the minister, I believe, responded that she was not lying, but rather because she did not know who exactly put the “not” in the letter, she had answered the question truthfully, and the parliamentary secretary supported that.
Next, in his first ruling on the affair, Speaker Milliken observed that:
The full body of material gives rise to very troubling questions. Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes. In particular, the senior CIDA officials concerned must be deeply disturbed by the doctored document they have been made to appear to have signed.
The Speaker could not take the full body of evidence into account at that point, so he did not rule that there was a prima facie case.
Finally, when the Speaker was apprised of the full body of evidence through a report, he did not go so far as to determine a prima facie case of contempt; rather, he recommended that it be referred to this committee.
I shall remind the committee that contempt of Parliament is the gravest offence that Parliament can find a private person, an official, a member, or a minister guilty of committing. The House can, after it finds a person guilty of contempt, one, leave it at that, which is the normal practice, with the finding of contempt considered adequate punishment in itself; two, expel the member or declare the seat vacant, and members have been expelled on four occasions, including Louis Riel twice, and Fred Rose, who at the time, 1947, was already in prison for contravening the Official Secrets Act; and three, the House can incarcerate the offending person, a punishment that last occurred in 1913.
I'm not going to go into the question here of whether the minister, in the added “not” case, Bev Oda, is guilty of contempt of Parliament, except I probably will, to observe that, as I understand it, she has, among other things, admitted to having misled the House. As the lawyers would put it, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility is at the core of the power and accountability of our parliamentary system. It does not matter who put the “not” in the letter. It was done in her name and apparently on her instruction. The act of doing it was falsifying a document. It fundamentally misrepresented the advice given to the minister by senior public servants. Nor does it matter whether the minister's signature was put there by a machine; it still remains her signature, and she holds responsibility for it being there.
Having said that, I want to point out to the committee that this is the second time in the not too long past that there has been a misrepresentation of the advice given by senior public servants to ministers...a misrepresentation by the minister to the House of what happened. The first was the issue of the advice given by Canada's chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, to his minister about the utility of a voluntary as compared to a compulsory survey. In that event, Mr. Sheikh had to resign to protest the misrepresentation of advice. I can go into that in more detail, but it's just history here.
Second, on this one, the public servant whose advice was misrepresented by having the “not” put in there did not resign, and it was a much smaller issue, because the compulsory survey is the core and heart of Statistics Canada's work for Canadians, for Parliament, and for everybody who needs to use statistics.
The issue of a grant like this is a much smaller issue, but again the advice given by two very senior public servants was misrepresented.
I do not believe that Canada has yet developed an adequate way to deal with ministers who break the bond of trust by misrepresenting the advice given to them by public servants. I would like to see Parliament be more active in ensuring that such a mechanism is developed.
Whether or not Ms. Oda lied to Parliament is the easy question. What to do when ministers misrepresent the advice they have been given by senior public servants, the core issue in both the Munir Sheikh and the Bev Oda affairs, is the hard one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Professor Franks.
There's little or nothing you've said with which I disagree. Res ipsa loquitur: the matter does speak for itself.
I was interested in your parallel between the Munir Sheikh census issue and the misrepresentation of what civil servant advice was given.
I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to read the material that was in the original grant, but it's quite complimentary to the work of Kairos and quite fulsome in its praise for the work of this particular organization. It's signed off by quite a number of organizations who actually reviewed the application. Then CIDA is made to be blamed for the initial decision.
The minister has since changed her version of those facts, but the Speaker said that these documents were doctored to make it look as if the decision was made by the CIDA officials and that they would be rightly disturbed.
Is it your view that Margaret Biggs is in a particularly awkward position and that possibly she should tender her resignation for being misrepresented by the minister?
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.
:
I accept that totally, with one qualification. My understanding is that the two senior public servants signed the document and then subsequently the “not” was put in. In other words, they signed the document saying that the grant should be made, and the document, once signed by the minister, had reversed that intention.
I believe that, in the law, that is not a good thing to do. I believe that if the minister had wanted to make it absolutely clear, there should have been an additional letter saying “I cannot sign the document. I do not support this and therefore it's rejected.”
Apart from that, I agree that my statements are not correct, and I apologize. What I tried to do.... And you'll notice I was very cautious in what I said there, that this is my understanding. I appreciate your correcting me on them all.
Again I raise the question, and I won't back down on this: Isn't the significant issue that the document, as it was presented to the committee in its original form, had the “not” in it and the two signatures, which implies, insofar as I know the law, that those signatures were put on to support the document as it was presented?
If I may, Professor, respectfully, I don't agree with that. In fact, even Ms. Margaret Biggs, the president of CIDA, admitted and has stated publicly that the document they sent over, the internal document--this inter-office memo, in other words--did not have a place in it for the minister to register her disapproval of the recommendation.
They admitted that was something they should have corrected, and they're taking steps to correct it, so that now, the documents--either recommending or not recommending a grant--that go to a minister from CIDA would have an opportunity, a space, where the minister could say “Yes, I agree with your recommendation” or “No, I do not agree”.
Mrs. Biggs says that was the root of the problem here. She didn't have a problem. CIDA officials themselves did not have a problem with the manner in which Minister Oda replied to them indicating her displeasure and her disapproval.
So I guess my point is—and this is where we could debate, and I don't think it's necessary to debate it—that if the CIDA officials did not have a problem, if they understood completely the minister's wishes, they were not offended by her inserting the word “not”, because they understood that was just a transmittal of intention of the minister to not fund Kairos. If they didn't have a problem with that, if they understood what the minister's wishes were, why then should we have a problem with that?
Professor Franks, thank you for being here today. I think your testimony was most enlightening.
I would like to begin by saying that, the minister lied and that’s factual. On April 23, 2010, in response to a question on the order paper—so, it’s written down; it’s not something that was said or that could have been interpreted—she said that the decision not to fund KAIROS was made by CIDA. On December 9, so several months later, she said the opposite in committee. But, we have on paper the fact that she said that it was CIDA’s decision and that she had endorsed it. So, as you mentioned, we are faced with two cases of misrepresentation on the part of senior public servants, simply to support the government’s position.
You mentioned Statistics Canada and the matter of the mandatory long form. Obviously, here in committee and in the House, we are talking about Ms. Oda's false statement, and also about false written statements that imply that CIDA supported the government’s decision to cut funding to KAIROS. In addition to the lie, we are dealing with the falsification of a document because, regardless of whether there was a place on the form for Ms. Oda to indicate that she didn’t want to fund KAIROS, all she had to do was not sign the document. Instead of that, someone added a “not” and she signed it. The two other people who had signed previously without the “not” discovered later that they had signed a document that had been falsified after the fact. I feel there is a governance problem there.
First, in British parliamentary system, trust is the basis of support to the government. In this case, the trust of parliamentarians was breached. I would like to know whether you think that we could go so far as a contempt of Parliament based on the facts and how Ms. Oda acted. Secondly, there is the ministerial responsibility that concerns the way Ms. Oda behaved in this matter. Shouldn’t she resign?
I am asking you this question because I saw, at the end of your presentation, that you were not willing to go so far as to recommend it to us. But could this go so far as contempt of Parliament concerning the government’s governance and to a demand for the resignation of the minister who breached the trust of parliamentarians?
:
Something struck me in your presentation, and I would like you to explain it further.
In point one, you say, “This change reflected the views of the on the desirability of the grant.” So you imply that the Prime Minister did not want KAIROS to have the grant.
The problem is not so much that the government cut the funding—although that constitutes another problem we could debate—as the way in which it was done. This was presented as being the result of a recommendation from CIDA, which wasn’t the case.
You referred to the . Here’s what I think happened. signed the document recommending the grant and, when the found out about it, he told her that he did not want the government to fund KAIROS. At that point, she had no choice but to falsify the document. Whether it was her or someone else, it doesn't matter.
You said that this change reflected the view of the . Yes, the minister is responsible, but don’t you think that the Prime Minister is also a responsible party in this whole matter?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Franks.
Thank you for reminding us in your opening remarks of the gravity of this situation. It's not a matter to be taken lightly. In fact, it's the highest voice or opinion we can render on an issue: to find someone in contempt.
Also, thank you for pointing out that Parliament is not always correct, that Parliament has been wrong in the past, and that Louis Riel was a hero, not a traitor, and probably should never have been found in contempt of Parliament.
So as we go into this study, I think we should be aware of the gravity of what we're about to undertake.
I take your point that the scale of the offence is irrelevant. The magnitude, the scope of it, may not be as expansive as the issue of the long-form census, but I liken it to an employee who steals stationery. An employee may be disciplined for that, even though it's a minor offence, but you just don't know what else is going on.
I guess my question to you, Mr. Franks.... It's plausible, in the way we've outlined things, that Minister Oda did follow the advice of her senior staff and did sign off on the Kairos grant, and somebody else, some other party, came along after the fact, even after she had applied her signature to it, and inserted the word “not”.
We have a feeling that Prime Minister Harper uses his cabinet as more of a focus group than any meaningful power anyway, so somebody from the PMO could have intercepted this and added the word “not” after Minister Oda had dutifully followed the recommendation of her staff. Is that not true?
Professor Franks, in your presentation, you said that you would instead observe—and Mr. Reid raised this—that, as you understand it, the minister admitted that she misled the House. As the lawyers said res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves. I am going to refer to Speaker Milliken's two rulings.
In his ruling of February 10, he said: “In particular, the senior CIDA officials concerned must be deeply disturbed by the doctored document they have been made to appear to have signed.”
In his ruling of March 9, he said: “...I have taken great care to study the evidence 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...”
You mentioned that we are aware of the seriousness of the incident, but Speaker Milliken also mentioned the gravity of the situation that the minister has put herself in.
Do you think that, if our committee decides that there was contempt of Parliament, that would be exaggerated?
I'm grateful for the opportunity today to respond to the Speaker's ruling to address the confusion surrounding the Kairos application. At the outset, first let me state that I take full responsibility for the confusion created, and I apologize for that.
I'm here today to explain to this committee and to the public why I initially didn't understand how my answers were creating confusion. I told the foreign affairs committee I did not know who specifically in my office had printed the word “not” on the Kairos departmental decision memo. I have also said that it was done at my direction. The confusion centres on how those two statements fit together. I'm here today to address that single matter of confusion, and the Speaker has given this specific mandate to this committee.
To fully explain this confusion I believe we must answer three questions. Why did I reject the Kairos application? How was my decision communicated to CIDA officials? And lastly, why didn't I elaborate further when I testified at the foreign affairs committee why I did not know who specifically inserted the word “not”?
Let me address the first question. Why did I reject the Kairos application? The Kairos application first came to me as a 19-page background document containing the CIDA staff analysis of the proposal and commentary from CIDA staff and Canadian ambassadors located in regions included in the proposal. CIDA officials also prepared a separate two-page decision memo for my signature. To be clear, these were internal documents from CIDA officials to me as the minister.
Before reaching a decision I spoke to CIDA officials and to my political staff. While both documents contained some positive aspects, they also contained aspects of concern to me. For example, over $880,000 was to be used for advocacy, training, media strategies, and campaign activities here in Canada. I believe that is not the best way to spend public funds intended to help those living in poverty in developing countries. We believe that CIDA's role is to make sure there's more food on the table for the hungry, more girls and boys in school, and more medicine in parts of the world that need it most.
We receive hundreds of proposals annually, but we cannot fund them all. My responsibility as minister is to prioritize those that best meet the objectives of Canadians and deliver value for aid dollars. So after careful consideration I decided to reject the Kairos application. At no time did I speak to , the , or any staff from their offices, nor did I receive any advice or direction from them. The decision was mine and mine alone.
Now I will turn to the second question. How was my decision communicated to CIDA officials? To fully answer this question I think it's important to understand the process used at that time by CIDA to seek a decision from the minister. First, an internal background document like the one I referred to earlier is sent to the minister. As well, a separate decision memo is sent containing a summary, a departmental recommendation, and a line for the minister to sign. The practice is that officials ask my office to provide written responses to proposal recommendations, making clear my decision. When decision memos come to me they have already been signed by the president of CIDA and another CIDA official.
In the Kairos instance I spoke to both my staff and CIDA personnel over the course of two months before arriving at and then communicating my decision. In this case I explained my concerns and sought further information from CIDA. They knew I was not likely to approve the application. These facts are not in dispute by my staff, or by CIDA officials. After due deliberation, when I felt I had enough information about the proposal, I telephoned my chief of staff and informed her that I had decided to reject the application. I then gave her direction to follow through on my decision with the department.
As Minister of International Cooperation, whether I'm travelling or in Ottawa I have a duty and responsibility to oversee CIDA. Every decision I make has to be communicated back to CIDA officials, and often, upon my direction, I must rely on my staff to follow through on my decisions. I speak to one of my political staff, who then communicates my decisions to CIDA via the decision memo drafted by CIDA officials. To give you an idea of scope, last year I dealt with over 750 memos.
In December, when I appeared before committee on this issue, I did not know who specifically in my office inserted the word “not” or who operated the auto-pen. Subsequently, after that committee, my former chief of staff, Stephanie Machel, told me she inserted the word “not”, following the normal practice at that time. She then instructed one of two authorized departmental officials in my office to use the auto-pen--in this case Claudette Rioux--to mechanically sign the document.
Having a paper record of decisions is critical, and it's not always possible for me to personally sign a decision memo. As a result, my office uses an auto-pen to mechanically reproduce my signature when I am unable to personally sign a document. This is a device employed by ministers across government, and it's my understanding that previous governments have used the same process.
When I made the CIDA decision, CIDA decision memos didn't provide an option whereby I could disagree with CIDA recommendations. Decision memos simply presented the recommendation of CIDA officials and offered a signature line. To overcome the absence of a disagree option, if I made a decision to disagree, my staff would insert the word “not” or “do not” in the recommendation line. However, to an outside observer, not knowing the process followed it might appear that someone who had earlier signed the document was unaware that the word “not” was inserted. That is not the case because in fact the same signed decision memo is returned to the very same officials who had initially signed the memo.
There has never been confusion regarding this practice. These decision memos are intended for internal use only, and CIDA officials did not raise any concerns about how my decision was communicated to them. Also, as is common practice in government, a ministerial decision is thereafter publicly referred to as the decision of the government or the relevant department or agency. I have apologized for the confusion and know now that I should have provided a fuller explanation of this process.
This then brings us to the third question: why didn't I elaborate further when I testified at the foreign affairs committee that I did not know who specifically inserted the word “not”? Put another way, why did I answer the precise question asked instead of providing the information that the committee was trying to ascertain?
When I told the committee that I didn't know who had printed the word “not” on the Kairos application, I did not know who specifically in my office had printed the word “not” and had signed the document. In hindsight, I wish I had been clearer in my answer by explaining the process I've described today and had offered to give the names once I had the information. My answer made sense to me then, because I knew the usual process undertaken. There was no intention to mislead the committee members. I now realize that from someone else's perspective it was confusing, as the Speaker has said.
People listening to my answers might have thought that I signed the document and, after that, someone had added the word “not”. That didn't occur to me because I knew that wasn't what could have happened. At the time, I did not see the confusion that my answers would cause, and I apologize for creating the confusion.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, my original answers were truthful, accurate, and precise, but were not clear. I'm here today to rectify any remaining confusion.
I have a great respect for Parliament and the members I serve with, including the Speaker, and I have faith in parliamentary procedures.
Mr. Chair, I never have--nor would I ever--jeopardized my reputation or my integrity. I have served my constituents and my country honourably with that same integrity. At no time would I ever intend to mislead anyone.
Thank you, and I look forward to the questions.
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?
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 .
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.
:
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.
:
You just got it. I see.
I went and asked the clerk for a copy, and she said she couldn't give it to me because it was in only one official language--English.
I've never seen a minister make a presentation in this Parliament circulated in one official language. It's unprecedented. If my colleague Yvon Godin were here, his head would explode.
Minister, you've maintained that it's common practice to insert “not” or “do not”. If that's the case, will you table examples? I don't believe any department could be that sloppy and that reckless and that irresponsible. If the forms didn't have a “disagree” option, why didn't you print some new forms?
I mean, who is driving the bus down there, Minister? You're either a very, very poor minister or an equally poor liar.
An hon. member: A point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Franks, professor of political science at Queen's, was here earlier today. He made a number of statements in his opening comments that he later apologized for, saying they were incorrect. They had many of the same misconceptions that the opposition has and perhaps members of the general public. They were factual inaccuracies. He stated that. He apologized for that.
I mention that because Mr. Laframboise and other members of the opposition seemed to be going down the same line, saying they believe you deliberately misled Parliament. I would point out just because the opposition thinks so or says so doesn't make it so.
Once again, did you at any time suggest, infer, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, try to give any impression whatsoever, to either Parliament or the general public, that the decision to not fund Kairos was a decision made by CIDA officials, or did you always, at every opportunity, tell them that it was your decision, and your decision alone, by your statements in the House and outside the House?
Let me go over the chronology again. On November 27, you decided, against the advice of your senior officials, not to fund KAIROS. That made waves. What made more waves is that, in Jerusalem on December 16, 2009, your colleague said that the grant had been cancelled because KAIROS was anti-Semitic. In your statements, precisely to distance yourself from this charge of having made a purely ideological decision on the Conservatives' antiquated values, you state and you write that CIDA made the decision.
Let me remind you that, on April 23, 2010, you said this in the House:
The criteria for the funding for KAIROS is the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.
The criteria referred to must be CIDA's. But we know that, under CIDA's criteria, KAIROS would have been funded. So we are looking for other criteria, probably those of the Harper government, and your own. I would like to know which criteria you were referring to during question period in the House on April 23, 2010. Were they CIDA criteria? Let me re-read the sentence for you:
KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding.
Were you not referring to CIDA criteria though we know very well that CIDA's recommendation was positive? Please answer.
:
Madam Minister, will you concede that, because of the way in which it was written, everyone thought the criteria were CIDA's? This was your answer to question 106:
…the CIDA decision not to continue funding KAIROS was based on the overall assessment of the proposal, not on any single criterion.
I do not accept the parliamentary secretary's interpretation. An overall assessment of a non-governmental organization's proposal looks at the whole proposal before the decision whether or not to fund it is made. The way in which this is written clearly indicates that the funding application was turned down as a result of CIDA criteria, and that is false. The application was turned down, by the minister and by the for strictly political reasons. That is the reality.
Furthermore, it is not just the opposition that considers that you expressed yourself very clearly. The document was not made public by CIDA, the government or the minister. It was made public under the Access to information Act. The document clearly shows that, in September, CIDA's recommendation was positive. According to CIDA's criteria, KAIROS' funding application should have been accepted.
You decided, for political reasons and because of the values you hold, but that I certainly do not share, to say no. That is not at issue in the slightest. So you added the word “not”.
Ms. Biggs, Madam Minister, what I still do not understand…
Mr. Chair, I've been very, very clear, when we were in discussion of this decision, in all my articulations, in all my responses, and in all my public statements, that this was my decision. It is my responsibility to make those decisions. It was my decision and mine alone. I don't know how I can be clearer on that.
Regarding referencing the decisions I make as a CIDA decision, I think I have clearly answered questions to clarify how that confusion.... The common practice is that once the minister makes a decision, it becomes the government's decision, and it becomes the department's decision and the agency's decision.
Mr. Chair, to the third point, in response to whether a reference to a single criterion...these decisions cannot be made on a single criterion. Depending on the proposal, the nature of the proposal, the country in which the work is being undertaken...these all factor into the decision-making process.
:
Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the minister's offence is twofold. First, she has deliberately misled--I believe she has deliberately misled--Parliament, this committee, and the general public, whether by omission or commission, and one is as serious as the other. There's a point in law that says a person can be presumed to have intended the probable outcome of his or her actions.
You knew the probable outcome of your actions.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, she knew that the world would believe that CIDA cancelled Kairos' funding, not that the politically ideological opinion of the cabinet had found its way into what should be an impartial analysis of an application for funding by an NGO.
The second offence, which is almost as bad, in my view, is that she has kneecapped her senior officials. She has cut the legs out from under the bureaucrats, who are just trying to do their jobs. This is what Ned Franks told this committee about today: we don't have a good mechanism for dealing with this kind of dilemma in Canada. If this were Britain...the secretary of the cabinet has been known to take ministers to task when they lie about the advice they have been given, or otherwise betray the trust and honour of the public service, as he put it.
Unfortunately, there is no such check and balance in our Canadian parliamentary system, in that the Clerk of the Privy Council is actually Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister, so nobody is going to come rushing to the defence of people whose opinions were misrepresented by their minister. That, to me, is as offensive as and of a scale of the contempt she has shown for Parliament by deliberately misleading the House of Commons.
I'll ask her one more time if she will table the examples, the documents. If this is a normal, frequent, and common practice in her department, will she table those documents? I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to ask the minister or direct the minister to do so.
:
Thank you for the opportunity.
I think I have done my best, to the best of my ability, to provide the factual answers to provide the truth. I have tried to answer every specific question that was posed to me as a question. I think I've done that thoroughly. I want to put some facts on the table.
I would never deliberately mislead anyone--anyone in the House or any member of the committee. I sit here before you bringing you the truth and the facts. I recognize that my reputation and integrity are being questioned here. I would tell you that this is the value I live by, I have lived by throughout my life, and I live by every day, whether I am before a committee, in the House, answering questions, or meeting with constituents. This is something that I value very highly.
I also want to put on the record that through a fair and balanced hearing, with open minds willing to hear the facts, understand the explanation of the process undertaken, and understand the limitations of the format used at that point in time, there is no cause to move further. I believe we have done what the Speaker instructed us to do to clarify confusion that may remain.
I want to thank Mrs. Corkery for being here today. It's good to have you here.
I think it's important to remind members, and also Canadians, that we're not here to discuss the decision made by the minister. I think we all agree that it is incumbent on ministers to make the kind of decision Minister Oda made.
In your opening comments you made the statement, perhaps in your response to Mr. McKay, that Kairos has had funding for 35 years. You also used the term “de-funded”. I think, in reality, what happened was that there was an application in process that wasn't funded. To me, that's different from having your funding cut off in the middle of a contract.
Earlier today, in our conversation with Minister Oda, she indicated that there are literally thousands of NGOs in Canada, and CIDA itself has dealt with I think some 700 of those on an on again, off again basis over the course of CIDA's history. I think all of us will agree that the recent events--tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding, and so on--around the world have seen many of these NGOs come to the table and do really good work on behalf of Canadians. In fact, I'm sure that every MP around this table has had NGOs of various stripes in their constituency offices sharing great ideas as to how they could help alleviate human suffering somewhere in the world, be it in a developing country or as a result of a natural disaster.
We also recognize that because of the number of applications, and Minister Oda indicated that this morning, it's literally impossible for any government agency to meet all of the expectations, even in one particular ministry, let alone government-wide, when the Minister of Finance is charged with the responsibility of developing a budget.
So do you think, simply because of a 35-year historical relationship with any funding agency, be it the United Way at home in a local riding or a member who's applying to CIDA for funding, that it is realistic for that applicant to assume that, simply based on historical track records, they would automatically receive that funding in the next year? I'm just trying to get to the heart of this word you used, “de-funded”.
If you could respond to that, I'd appreciate it.
:
When Kairos learned for certain that CIDA had recommended the application--I believe it was in December 2010--I received a phone call from the media, from a person at Canadian Press, asking me to comment on the documents released under access to information. We said we couldn't respond because we didn't have them. She then sent some but not all of the documents.
We knew we'd had a stellar evaluation by the independent consultant hired by CIDA to evaluate us after our last program, and a very good audit. We were able to see the recommendations from CIDA as a department and the actual comments from experts on environment, gender, the Middle East, and Africa. There was certainly a very strong affirmation of the work of Kairos and everything we had said.
So we didn't understand why we were cut. We didn't see the reason there. We understood that governments had to make decisions for efficiency and effectiveness. It said we already had the CIDA evaluation by the independent evaluator, Susan Harvie. It said that Kairos was cost-effective, worked through coalitions, achieved results, had very good judgment, and met the priorities of CIDA, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, the millennium development goals, and aid effectiveness priorities.
We had also seen the recommendations from foreign desks and others who were familiar with our work. There were comments that Kairos' work in the Congo was certainly very helpful, and Kairos' work in the Middle East seemed to be a step in the right direction and in keeping with their policies. It made it even more confusing for us.
:
We can round it up or round it down, but it's still 18 million people, right?
So when Minister Kenney stands up and gives a speech that is....
Let me just go back for a second.
Mrs. Corkery, I recognize your last name, and I'm sure you might recognize my last name; I think we come from probably similar Irish ancestry. If there's anything that Canadians of Irish ancestry understand, it's the scourge of sectarianism that ripped Ireland apart for 450 years.
I want to just go back to the speech Mr. Kenney gave, where he levelled extreme charges against your group and, through your group, the 18 million Canadians who are represented by the churches.
I'm going to ask you this straight up. I know how divisive this kind of sectarian talk can be, so I don't ask this question flippantly, Mrs. Corkery. I want you to answer it as honestly and as deeply as you wish. Are you anti-Semitic?
:
Thank you, Ms. Corkery, for being here today.
I've talked to clergy in my home riding of Oakville. We have one synagogue in Oakville. I call the rabbi my rabbi, although I'm an Anglican. We've discussed this issue at length.
I have some questions about a section from one of your documents on the website about ending partnerships, which is a difficult thing to do. It says:
Kairos partnerships in the work of global justice are generally long term. However, they are not necessarily forever. This policy helps ensure that partnerships may be ended, if need be, in a transparent, equitable and fair manner.
There are some circumstances listed that may lead to the ending of a partnership. I'll just read you the first one, if I may. It says:
Changes in the political, social, or economic context--and our analysis of how Kairos can most effectively help--indicate that we need to give priority, with our limited resources, to new areas of work.
Isn't that really what CIDA has said to Kairos? If you replaced the word “Kairos” with “CIDA” you'd say, “our analysis of how CIDA can most effectively help”--you know that the minister's priorities are food, medicine, education, and aid in Africa, for example, rather than advocacy--and, “indicate that we need to give priority, with our limited resources, to new areas of work”.
So when CIDA ends a relationship, it's really doing what Kairos does when it has to end a relationship.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm still looking for places in your proposal or in the evaluation of your proposal that might have set off Minister Kenney, or anyone in the Conservative government, to this wild conclusion that you're somehow anti-Israel. I do notice in your evaluation—I think I found the clause you are making reference to—that the Middle East and the North Africa bureaus of the Department of Foreign Affairs commented on your proposal, and they say this:
Canada is committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.
Kairos projects in the region are a step in the right direction.
That doesn't seem to be critical at all. It seems to be that the Middle East office and bureau, and the North Africa bureau, think that you're doing positive work.
I notice later in appendix B, given in the memorandum to the minister, it talks about Gaza and the West Bank. It goes on in depth about that. But at the bottom of that paragraph, it says:
Kairos proposal focuses on human-rights-based projects of four Palestinian and Israeli peace organizations of the Jerusalem Center for Women, Bat Shalom, Falastiniat, and Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center.
Are any of these four organizations known to be controversial or extremist, or anti-Israel I suppose is my question?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an opening presentation to make. I encourage you to stop my presentation when you've had enough or if you think members may want to ask some questions rather than listen to me any longer.
Lawyers, as you know—hopefully you don't know from direct experience—when they have clients who are faced with an action brought against them in the courts, have to advise the clients as to what the case is that might be brought against the clients for the clients to consider whether they want to go forward on a guilty plea or a not-guilty plea.
In a trial, at the end of the trial, the lawyer on one side will summarize the evidence and then make arguments from that, and the lawyer on the other side will summarize the evidence and make arguments from that. Of course, in their summaries they will summarize the evidence in a way that's most favourable to their client.
What I propose to do today is not summarize the evidence favourable to either side, but just summarize the evidence as to what I think is out there that the committee ought to consider. I would preface that first by saying that, as other witnesses have said, this is a very important matter where a member, in this case a minister, is accused of deliberately misleading the House—by “House”, I include the committee. I would only offer this comment, if I may, on your behalf, as the Law Clerk of the House: as serious as the offence is, and for good reason, the evidence ought to be weighed in a manner that's serious and balanced and is convincing at the end of the day.
The motion to the House is that the matter concerning statements by the minister be referred to this committee. It doesn't say what statements. So the first question I had to ask myself in preparing for this meeting is what statements we are talking about.
If you look to the ruling by the Speaker, it seems to me the Speaker in this case didn't come to any conclusion as to whether there had been any misleading, but he did come to the conclusion that there had been some confusion for members caused by the minister's statements or non-statements and that he thought this was a matter this committee should look into more profoundly and report to the House, hopefully with a resolution to that confusion so that in future the facts are clear.
The facts may be clear at this point, after all the testimony the committee has heard, but having clarified the facts, the committee is still arguably entitled to go back and see if there was at any point in time a misrepresentation made to the House that ought not to have been made, a misrepresentation that was deliberately made, and one on which members had to rely and govern themselves for some period of time until it was corrected.
So with that preface, let me first begin by saying it seems to me that there are two statements, for lack of a better term, that give rise to the charge of misleading the House: one is the statement made in the committee meeting of December 9, and the other is the statement in the House that this CIDA decision was the result of an examination of the merits of the application by the CIDA officials.
The statement in the House was initially made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister, not the minister. The parliamentary secretary later corrected himself. He made his initial statement on March 15, and he later corrected himself on December 13. Arguably, after December 13 there was no confusion about that aspect, as the parliamentary secretary had apologized for his error. However, between March 15 and December 13, a period of several months, the House was left to understand that the statement by the parliamentary secretary was the truth, and the question this committee might ask itself is whether the minister in that period of time could have or should have intervened at some point and made the record clear. I'm not aware of any statement made by the minister in the House or elsewhere, in the committee, doing that.
Before I go further, I should point out that I have not looked at what statements may or may not have been made elsewhere by the minister or parliamentary secretary or any other member of the government. This claim for misleading the House is based on what is said in the House or at committee. It is with respect to that record that I am making my remarks today.
On the statement in the committee, the question asked of the minister was whether she inserted the word “not” in the document. She said she did not. The question was not asked to her whether she might know how the word “not” found its way into the document. Accordingly, she did not have any testimony before the committee on that point.
The issue this committee has to address is the standard of truthfulness that's to be expected of ministers--and frankly, of any witness--when they appear before committees. Is it good enough that a witness seemingly has to wait for the right question—or from the witness's point of view, perhaps the wrong question—to be asked and then respond truthfully? When it's evident from the question or a series of questions what the interest of the committee is, should the witness volunteer information that may go beyond the terms of the question but would provide a more complete and full answer to the committee? I'm not answering that question now, but I raise it to you: that is the question the committee has to ask itself regarding that testimony.
Going back to the other issue, of whether the decision was based on the recommendation of the CIDA officials, that too is something for the committee to assess as to the gravity of that oversight. It's an offence by omission rather than commission, if you like. I have not found any statement on the record where the minister said what the parliamentary secretary earlier said. So in that sense there was no statement by the minister that could be said to cause the House to be misled.
Arguably, there was an opportunity to make a statement that would have clarified the situation earlier than December 13, 2010, when the parliamentary secretary made his apology to the House and clarified his earlier statement.
I'll leave it at that for the moment, Mr. Chairman, and take questions.
I wish we had more time.
I do want to go back to a couple of things you said. I agree with Mr. McKay on one thing. I think the question here really is one of intent. Was there an intent to mislead the House? I think you've verified that this is the crux of the issue before us.
What we heard in testimony today was that the famous document with the word “not” inserted was an internal document rather than a parliamentary document. I categorize that as more of an inter-office memo than anything else. This document was intended to communicate, between the officials at CIDA and the minister, the minister's intention to fund or not fund Kairos.
As you've stated, it may not have been the best method by which to communicate. But when the minister told her staff to communicate back to the CIDA officials who sent in a recommendation that she did not accept their recommendation and in fact did not wish to fund Kairos, that's when the “not” was inserted, and the signature arm, after that point, went in.
There was no confusion. There was no deception intended. There was no intent to mislead CIDA officials. And that point has been verified by the president of CIDA herself, who said that this was a normal course of action and that they understood completely what the minister's intentions were when they received this document back in their possession.
Given that, Mr. Walsh, would you not agree that if there was no intent to deceive, and certainly if the recipient of the document, that being Ms. Biggs, said that she understood that the intent of the word “not” being inserted was to communicate the minister's wishes and that there was not, she felt, any intent to deceive, that would dispel the argument that there was an intention to deceive, which the opposition seems to be promoting?
:
In my view, the critical consideration here, going to your point, is not just reading the document, but asking yourself what use was made of the document.
This is not unlike the element of the Afghan detainee controversy, where one of the points of privilege was the legal opinion letter put out by the Department of Justice, which the mover of the motion argued was itself a breach of the privilege of the House. You may recall that the Speaker's ruling was that a letter of opinion is not a breach of privilege, but what use you make of that letter might be a breach of privilege.
Anybody can express an opinion. That's what lawyers do for a living. An opinion was expressed in that letter, but what use you made of that letter might then constitute an interference.
Now, you look at this document. Well, I understand the testimony that it's seen as an internal document to the agency. The CIDA officials are not complaining about being misrepresented by that document, so you ask yourself--this is the lawyer talking--who has an interest in this document? Who has an interest who might complain and say: “That misrepresents my view. That misrepresents what has been used to misrepresent my view”? Well, obviously, the officials at CIDA would be the first ones who might say that, and they aren't saying that.
Mr. Franks this morning talked about and gave great weight to the fact that the minister is responsible for falsifying the CIDA document. That was the word he used: “falsifying”. He talked about a presentation of that document in a very serious manner, a very serious representation. He talked about a presentation of the document's submission to the committee and so on. The fact as I understand it is that this document was never presented by the minister to the committee. It was never used by the minister to advance any particular point of view.
What happened, I understand--and I consulted the clerk of the foreign affairs committee this morning--is that there was a discussion in the committee about this document, at some length. They came to the end of their deliberations--they were doing a report--and somebody said, “Gee, if we're going to refer to this document, perhaps we should have it”. At that point, what was produced was the last page of the document, and the report of the committee has appended to it only the last page of that document.
So the document came into the public realm, I understand--and I stand to be corrected--through an access to information application, and as a result it has been the subject of much discussion ever since. But in fairness to the minister, it seems to me, one has to acknowledge that, to my knowledge, according to the record, she never used the document to advance some erroneous or misleading information. It simply came to the surface. It was an internal document of the government, and yes, she is embarrassed by it, and she has had to explain herself a lot ever since--much discussion about that “not”--but I don't see it as being determinative of the question of an attempt to mislead the House.
:
I would just like to review the timeline here.
I was the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, when this matter came to light during the winter of 2010. We asked a number of questions. The minister's version of the events, which she claims has remained unchanged, is difficult to believe.
On November 27, 2009, she rejected CIDA's recommendation and the word “not“ was inserted at her request. Whether she was the one who inserted the word, or whether someone else actually did, is not really that important here.
On November 30, 2009, KAIROS officials received a telephone call and were informed that they did not meet the funding criteria. They were not told that it was a CIDA decision, only that they would be getting a more detailed report. KAIROS never did receive that report. Over the winter of 2010, one question arose: why did KAIROS lose its funding?
At the time, the government—the parliamentary secretary as well as the minister—implied that the decision to cut the funding was made by CIDA, ostensibly because KAIROS did not meet its criteria.
You mentioned the statement made on March 15, 2010 by the parliamentary secretary and the answer to question 106 on the Order Paper of April 23, 2010. I would like to call your attention to an answer given on that very same day, that is April 23, 2010, in the House:
The criteria for the funding of KAIROS is the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.
Everyone believed that the minister was talking about CIDA's criteria. Yet, she knew full well that this was a political decision, and although I disagree with it, it is entirely legitimate nevertheless
The controversy subsequently subsided a bit and was no longer a topic of conversation. Of course, there are always new issues that can stir up some indignation on our part.
On December 9, at the same time as the document containing the infamous word “not“ obtained under the Access to Information Act was released, the minister appeared before the committee and announced that the decision to end the funding had always been hers.
The controversy was rekindled. Vague questions were asked. It wasn't until February 14 last, more than one year later, that the minister clarified the situation. Doubts had persisted for this entire period of time.
The opposition parties were not alone in questioning this version of the facts. Indeed, the following day, virtually every editorial in Canada and Quebec called for the minister's resignation.
Do you not think that the amount of time that elapsed gives us sufficient reason to find that the minister took advantage of the situation, at the very least, to suggest that the decision was CIDA's and not hers, and that CIDA's criteria, not her own criteria, factored into the decision? Do we not have sufficient reason to think that?
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Walsh, once again, for helping to bring clarity to our deliberations.
I appreciated your opening remarks, that one of the first prerequisites we have to lay down is what standard of truthfulness we expect. I hope that we would expect the highest standard of truthfulness from any witness, but especially a minister of the crown. I also thank you for your comment about guilt by omission or an offence by omission as much as commission. I think as we wrestle with this, that's what it seems to be coming to.
Also, this idea that you have to ask the exact, right question or you're not going to get any answer...I call it the Rumpelstiltskin effect. Others might even call it the Mulroney effect, because others have used this excuse to be less than truthful, frankly.
Could there be any doubt, when Mr. McKay asked the question at a foreign affairs committee meeting, about what he really wanted to know? He asked, “Who put the 'not' on the document?”, and she said, “I have no idea, I don't know.”
She actually directed her chief of staff to overturn the recommendation of the CIDA officials for the funding of Kairos. It would be reasonable for her to assume that the person she directed to overturn it changed the document to reflect her orders.
I think that's guilt by omission. I think she should have volunteered. She could have said, “I don't know who inserted the word “not”, but I told my chief of staff to reverse that recommendation by CIDA.” That would have been fully truthful. Do you agree?
:
The committee has to weigh how important that is in a situation where we are talking about deliberately misleading. It is a serious offence. It's a hanging offence. It's a capital offence, and we reserve capital punishment--when we had it, anyway--for serious offences, and there was a very long and elaborate process for determining whether in fact the offence was committed.
I can only say to the committee that for your own sake and for the integrity of the parliamentary system, at the end of the day the readers of your report should be as convinced as you are from the evidence you have that in fact this was a serious misleading of the House in this “not” issue and not an incidental failing of a kind that might be forgivable. I'm not making a comment. I'm just raising the question for you.
However, when you get to the other issue about whether the funding was decided by the officials or decided at the political level, yes, there was that period of time when the minister arguably could have corrected the error made by the parliamentary secretary and that error was not corrected until the parliamentary secretary apologized and acknowledged his error. Even there the minister never did say the officials were overruled. Some of you might think that should have been what the minister did, to indicate that this was a decision made at the political level and not a decision based on recommendations from the officials.
How important is that? That's your call. That is for you to decide. All these months went by and no clarification was offered. How many of the debates of the House were led off in the wrong direction because you didn't have the full information in front of you? Those are the kinds of questions, it seems to me, you ought to be asking yourselves, not the mere, incidental fact that there was a period to give the whole truth, but there was a period to give the whole truth on an important matter, a matter that was important to the House and this committee, and our proceedings were denied an opportunity to consider the matter fully because the minister was not fully truthful. You have to weigh that sense of gravity, I think.
The ordinary dictionary definition of “contempt” is that it's “beneath consideration or worthless or deserving of scorn”. It's a disrespect, in this particular case, for Parliament. We have special rules in Parliament that require truthfulness—truthfulness within the four-square concept of truthfulness. We have special privileges that are accorded to members of Parliament. We operate in a public atmosphere, and we expect that all witnesses who come before us are truthful to the point where it may even be adverse to their own interests.
In that standard, I would suggest, sir, that the expectation of a minister to speak truth to Parliament is in fact higher than for a citizen coming and sitting in the same place that you are. We expect the ministers to tell the truth, and to tell the truth completely and fully, because we are impeded in doing our work if in fact we don't get that work done.
So that's the standard I'm inviting you to comment upon. When a minister replies to an order paper question to the member from London North Centre, is that a full and complete answer? Similarly, with the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, is that a full and complete answer? Or are both members left with the impression that this was actually a CIDA decision?
It's not until we actually come to the December 9 point that we find out that in fact CIDA recommended the grant. So up until that point, we all believed it was CIDA's decision to deny the grant. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion to make?
Then we find out on the famous “not” question that within 24 hours she could have cleared the whole thing up and saved herself a whole lot of grief. Then the parliamentary secretary, when he's cited for contempt, says, actually, “I didn't know.” That was part of the press release. That was all part of the entire information that I was given.
So given this very high standard that applies not only to members of the public coming before the Parliament of Canada, but even more so to ministers, isn't it a reasonable conclusion that at least on all four of those points, including in her testimony today, she falls far short of the standard that should be expected for those appearing before a committee or speaking in Parliament?
Mr. Walsh, just going back again to your comments and your introduction on the Speaker's referral of this issue to committee, you mentioned, I think quite correctly, that the Speaker did not attach any blame whatsoever. In fact, I don't think he ever came close to an admonishment of the minister. He mainly said that he referred this to committee to try to clear the air, to try to clear up the confusion that has been caused.
We've heard through testimony today, direct testimony from the minister and Margaret Biggs, the president of CIDA, answers to all of the questions that appeared to have been causing the confusion: Who put the “not” in the document? Was there any intention of the minister to mislead by referring to the decision having been made by CIDA officials as opposed to CIDA?
The minister's contention, and I say quite rightly, when she said on a continuous basis and on a consistent basis that the decision was made by CIDA, was that as the minister responsible for CIDA, when she makes a decision, it becomes a CIDA decision. I don't think those are points that can be argued.
Obviously, the opposition is trying to suggest that by stating that it was a CIDA decision, it was an intention to mislead, because they interpreted that to mean CIDA officials. I can't help the opposition, frankly, if their interpretation is different from the intention of the minister.
I'm not asking you to really comment on that, but I am asking you to perhaps give a few observations, given all the testimony we've heard today, primarily from the minister and Ms. Biggs, on whether you think the confusion, with respect to those questions the Speaker was referring to that needed to be cleared up, has been addressed adequately.
:
Again, it's like the earlier use of
suffisants used by Monsieur Paquette. Now it is “adequately”. This is the judgment you have to make on whether they have been addressed adequately.
To go to your point about the use of terminology, such as “CIDA's decision” or “the department's decision”, that's the parlance for talking about a decision that has been taken with the minister's approval. Typically, it's referred to as a departmental decision or a CIDA decision. That may be the common practice. I don't mean to suggest that it's not. It may be that in answer to question number 106, when the answer refers to “the CIDA decision”, some members took that as indicative that the decision was based not only on the minister's approval or the minister's input but on CIDA's input. I can't answer for how members might have read that.
I don't think one should, however, allow this way of talking--“CIDA decision, departmental decision”--to be used as a shield to obscure the distinction between a decision taken or a recommendation coming from the professional level, the departmental level, and the ministerial decision, which is political. There is an important distinction there.
I think members give weight to whether a decision of the government is supported by the professionals whose careers are engaged in that field. They don't mean to say that it has to be followed, but they're interested to know if it is the case. When it's the case that the ministerial decision is not along the lines of what's recommended, that raises questions, understandably, from parliamentarians, who have a great respect for public servants and for departments of government.
The onus, then, is on the minister to explain why the minister did not follow the recommendation of the officials, keeping in mind that it is not the case that parliamentarians would know that a decision of the government was not in step with departmental officials. Arguably, parliamentarians have no right to know that, because the only ones accountable to the House are the ministers. They're the ones who make the decisions. If they decide they're not going to fund, they have to account for that. They can't either blame their officials for making the wrong recommendation or say, “Well, I did that because the officials told me I should do that.” They're responsible. They're accountable.
Mr. Walsh, I am going to take a moment to read part of the ruling made by Speaker Milliken on March 9. Surely, you had a hand in it. You must have advised or counselled him on it. The Speaker said the following:
On February 14, 2011, the Minister of International Cooperation made a statement in the House to clarify matters related to the funding application for KAIROS. While acknowledging that the way in which this case has been handled was unfortunate, she asserted that she had neither intentionally nor knowingly misled the House or the committee. She also stated that:
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.
The Speaker said it was true that she had never acknowledged being guilty of anything, but she did apologize for something that was misinterpreted. That is perfectly clear, and I think everyone recognizes that. The Speaker went on to say that he relied on a ruling made by the Speaker of the House in 1978. He then made the following comment:
It is with this principle in mind that I have taken great care to study the evidence 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 [...].
There is something very important to keep in mind here, and my colleague Mr. Paquette has been pointing it out all day: it is not just the Bloc Québécois that is calling for the minister to step down. Editorial writers and other members of the press are also calling for her resignation. It is not a trivial matter when you try to attribute a political decision made by the Conservative government to CIDA.
That led to Professor Franks saying that, in his opinion, it was clear that the minister had admitted to misleading the House. After reading the Speaker's ruling and in light of the statement made by the minister on February 14, he believes that, regardless, she had admitted to misleading the House. I asked him if he found it unreasonable to go as far as raising the question of contempt of Parliament. His answer was that there were two sides to the issue. With respect to the political decision, he said it would be unreasonable. We all agree on that. She did indeed have the right, politically speaking, to say that she and the Conservative Party were against the idea. The other side of the issue, however, is the attempt to attribute that decision to CIDA. I understood you perfectly, and you said that it was not a matter of deciding how important the word “not” was. True, at the end of the day, what we, as parliamentarians, must try to figure out is whether we believe the minister when she says that she does not know what happened. However, all of her actions for over a year now lead us to believe that there was indeed an attempt to make us think that the decision was not one made freely by the Conservative Party but, rather, that it came from CIDA. Obviously, on that point, Mr. Franks said that there was a clear contempt of Parliament, in his view.
To a certain extent, you are telling us the same thing. No, you did not say that it constituted a contempt of Parliament, but you told us to weigh the evidence carefully and to be sure of our position before we go as far as to decide that there was a contempt of Parliament.
It is important to get the facts, and that is why it was important for me to hear what Professor Franks had to say. He is an expert, a professor emeritus, and above all, he does not have a political agenda. He simply pointed out that we were on a slippery slope and that an offence was committed. According to him, the minister did mislead the House, and part of what happened constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
I would just like you to confirm once again whether it would be unreasonable to go as far as to decide that a contempt of Parliament did occur.
We're all eager to move ahead with this.
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of points I would like to clarify, and it does speak to the motion in terms of the evidence that's either to be included or not, depending on the motion.
Earlier today, Mr. McGuinty mentioned that I'm a member of the Mennonite Church. Well, one might ask where he would find that kind of information. And it appears to me, Mr. Chair, that it was from his staff.
My question is this. Is that the kind of activity his staff are engaged in, spending their time researching what faith group members belong to? And is that meant to bolster their arguments for personal points?
Mr. Chair, I have never been a member of the Mennonite Church. I have strong relationships with many Mennonite individuals and many Mennonite churches, but in fact, Mr. Chair, I also have strong relationships with many Catholics, many Lutherans, many Anglicans, and I could go on. But my bigger concern, Mr. Chair, is that when I questioned Mr. McGuinty about the source of his information he said it was from my website. I can assure you, Mr. Chair, that my website contains no such statement. So where did he get his information? It turns out he got it from Wikipedia.
I'm wondering if maybe that's where Mr. Martin got his information about the Library of Parliament yesterday, but we'll leave that.
All members know that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced, unverified source of information that is subject to manipulation. So the same as we saw yesterday, when the coalition banded together to exclude all expert witness on one matter of contempt, today we find their preferred source of facts, or gossip, is Wikipedia.
I ask the member, with all due respect, to apologize for his errors, to withdraw his earlier statement, and to assure this committee that other statements he has attempted to make over the course of these past three days were not sourced via Wikipedia.
Hopefully we can get to a resolution here quickly, and I mean that sincerely. I'm not here to filibuster. Those of you who know me....
Mr. Paquette, please hear me out.
Those of you who know me--as Mr. Proulx does, and others who have served with me on the procedure and House affairs committee--know that if I'm going to filibuster I announce it. I let members know. I have always done that. I am not intending to do that.
Yesterday, I was angry, and I'm still angry, at the motion as it was presented and at the content of the motion itself. However, having said that, I can assure you that from the government's perspective, we are committed to having a report tabled in the House on Monday, March 21, as was the motion that was approved. So I want to get something done today so a report can be tabled.
I would ask my colleagues from both the Bloc and the NDP to make comment on whether or not the motion as presented yesterday should be amended. Now, unfortunately two of the members who were sitting at committee yesterday are not here today. Madame DeBellefeuille had said yesterday that the Bloc might be open to amending or even deleting that last portion that says “no summary of evidence” to be attached. Monsieur Godin indicated the same willingness--at least, that's my interpretation.
I agree with my colleague, Mr. Albrecht, that arbitrarily limiting the report to two pages seems to be undemocratic, to say the very least, because based on testimony heard, in all probability it will go more than two pages.
Having said all that, I am obviously still aware that if the united opposition wants to have a finding that is contained in the main body of the motion--that is, stating that the government is in contempt--they can certainly do so. There is very little we can do to prevent that from happening, and I'm not going to filibuster to try to stop this motion from coming forward, as I said earlier. But I would like to hear from my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, at least on those two points. Can we at least agree to have a report that includes a summary of evidence, and to also include a report that is not restricted to two pages or less?
With that, I certainly hope I can hear some commentary from my colleagues across.
When I look for subterfuge, I usually don't go to the top of a document; I usually go to the end, because that's where they like to hide it. And that's where the evil intent usually lies.
So I'm looking at the last line of this motion, and here's what it says: “That no summary of evidence be included in the draft report”. Summaries of evidence are rich in detail, they're helpful in understanding the nuances of what went on at these proceedings, and they provide the Canadian public with an understanding of what went on here.
I ask myself, where do government proceedings not have summaries of evidence? I think in Cuba they wouldn't have summaries of evidence, because in Cuba they just knock on your door in the middle of the night and then you disappear and nobody sees you for years. Of course, that's the kind of thing that would happen in North Korea as well, the same kind of thing. There are no summaries of evidence because they just say what happens and hear what happens. And of course they don't have summaries of evidence in Iran because they're dictators--the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad--and if you get on the wrong side of them, your life isn't worth anything, so they don't have summaries of evidence.
It's obvious here, Chair, that the coalition are using their majority to censor what Canadians hear. We've sat here for three days in this committee, at their request, and heard evidence from four ministers now. I didn't count the hours. I think it's about nine or ten hours. They don't want the Canadian public, through the media who are here today, to hear that.
Then I go to the top of the page, and maybe I should have gone there first, because at the top of the page it says, “That the draft report be no longer than two pages in each official language”. This is an incredible attempt to silence Parliament. When you hear this much evidence on these committees, what you would normally get is a report that might be 15, 20, or 30 pages long. The opposition coalition are demanding that this committee produce a report that has no summaries and is no more than two pages long. This motion itself is one full page, and it's a foolscap page.
The opposition have the information they asked for, all the evidence we've heard in the last two and a half to three days now, and they have this. They complained about getting too much information after complaining they didn't have enough information.
Chair, if there is any contempt for Parliament here, it's contempt here and now expressed by the opposition coalition for this committee, and indirectly through this committee to Parliament. They're asking us to work in the dark. They're asking to leave Canadians in the dark regarding what we did here for these three days. I simply say to Canadians, here is the coalition. How do you like it so far?
Thank you.
I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's an important one. I want to simply let folks, members, and Canadians know the reason why the “summary of evidence” not “be included in the draft report” was originally put in here. We've been informed by the table officers that the House of Commons cannot translate more than eight pages a day. We're working on a really tight deadline. We have until the 21st.
Here's the good news. My colleague Mr. Proulx had a conversation with the Clerk of the House, Ms. O'Brien, who informed him they are prepared to waive that rule. They will put all of the resources necessary into translating this text by Monday morning. So despite all the aspersions cast and all of the ghosts that have been divined by Mr. Young and others, the only reason this was put in here in the first place was to try to make the work of the drafters easier and more time-effective so we can get this done by Monday.
We are certainly prepared to entertain amendments to this motion, as we said yesterday. I said it openly here. We said it in the media. I say it again today. There are no ghosts. There's no question here of limiting debate. We've just had three full days of debate. We have all kinds of information in the public realm. If Mr. Young doesn't know, this has all been broadcast on TV. The transcripts are all available. It's all over the Internet, and the paper material is being published. So it's all available for any Canadian who wants to look at it and make up their own mind.
I would be prepared to entertain a friendly amendment, whether it's from Mr. Paquette in the Bloc, someone from the Conservative party, or Mr. Martin over here, that addresses this question of summary of evidence so we can get on with our job.
I implore my colleagues not to cast aspersions where they simply don't exist.