For Oda-philes: Conservative MPs get their talking points

Normally, the much-maligned “Alerte-Info-Alert”-bot memos distributed on a near-daily basis to Conservative MPs by the party and/or PMO are short and to the point, designed to give MPs back in their ridings a few common points of reference on a given issue of the day if ever they run into a local reporter or constituent with pesky questions.

But this weekend, Conservative MPs got a much longer, more detailed Alerte-Info-Alert-bot memo about the situation involving International Development Minister Bev Oda, who stands accused by her political opponents of the serious charge of lying to Parliament. Some Conservative MPs have told me they are uneasy at best, and unhappy at worst, with the situation. I've reproduced the memo below — it's been widely distributed to Conservative MPs and to some news organizations, including QMI — and I read it, then, not only as a list of talking points for MPs to use with reporters and constituents but also as an appeal from the leadership in their party to remind any uneasy MPs that they are in the right on the Oda issue. In other words, though the senior leadership of the party insist they are right (see the last line!), the very existence of this memo speaks to the fact that they're feeling the heat. So here's the memo. Does it change your mind, one way or the other?

Minister Oda and KAIROS: the Facts

Information regarding Tom Lukiwski’s response to a point of privilege raised in the House of Commons on Friday February 18.

*Our Government supports funding to deliver aid and tangible results for the people of developing countries, not subsidizing advocacy.

*Minister Oda made a decision that reflects the priorities and policies of our Government.

*The Minister has been clear: this was her decision.

*The Minister has apologized for a lack of clarity in her testimony before Committee, and has rectified that lack of clarity.

*We stand by Minister Oda and her decision not to provide millions of dollars in advocacy funding to KAIROS.

Here are the facts:

KAIROS’ Request for $7 million

KAIROS made a request for funding from CIDA in the amount of $7 million. Minister Oda determined that this request was inconsistent with our Government’s foreign aid priorities. Our Government believes taxpayers money budgeted for foreign aid should be used to deliver aid and tangible results for the people of developing countries, not for subsidizing advocacy.

CIDA’s Memo to Minister Oda Seeking Her Decision

The internal memo in question was sent to Minister Oda by CIDA public servants who were seeking a decision from her. An internal memo is not a contract requiring the parties, in this case the Minister and her department, to agree. An internal memo includes departmental analysis and a departmental recommendation, and is a tool used to convey the decision of the Minister to her officials so that they may implement the Minister’s decision. Across government, hundreds of these internal memos cross ministers’ desks everyday. This is how elected officials transmit their decisions to the public service in our system of government.

Minister Oda was the only person with the authority to make a decision regarding this application for funding. In this case, the Minister’s decision was to reject the recommendation provided to her, and direct that CIDA not provide funding to KAIROS.

The Minister had reviewed the memo, made her decision not to approve the funding application, and asked her staff to follow through on it. The Minister was travelling out of Ottawa on the day that her staff completed the paper work to implement her decision, so they, with the Minister’s authority, applied her automated signature, which is used when required because a Minister is unable to personally sign a document, and indicated her decision on the memo by clearly indicating that she did NOT approve the funding application.

The memo was then returned to the very officials who had sent it to the Minister for a decision. By definition, those who received the returned memo could not have been misled, and were not misled, by the manner in which the Minister’s decision was communicated in the document. Margaret Biggs, President of CIDA, confirmed this when she testified before a House committee on December 9, 2010:

Ms. Margaret Biggs (President of CIDA): Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department's advice.

This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that's quite normal.

I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn't want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative.

The Order Paper Question

Liberal MP Glen Pearson posed an order paper question in early 2010 to Minister Oda asking why CIDA had decided not to fund KAIROS.

In her April 2010 answer to this order paper question, Minister Oda referred to “The CIDA decision not to continue KAIROS funding.” The Liberals now assert that this answer suggests that agency officials rather than the Minister opposed funding to KAIROS. Public servants did not have the authority to approve funding for this application. Only the Minister did. For this funding request, there was only one possible decision-maker, Minister Oda, and once she made a decision it became CIDA’s decision. Her answer was not only accurate, it was fully responsive to the order paper question and could not have been answered in any other way.

The Alleged Contradiction

While testifying at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Minister Oda was asked who had inserted the word “NOT” to communicate back to the department her decision not to provide funding to KAIROS. Because she did not know specifically which staff member had inserted the word “NOT”, she said she did not know. At the same hearing, she told the Committee eleven times that she was responsible for the decision.

The Bigger Picture

The Minister has apologized for a lack of clarity in her testimony before the Committee, and has rectified that lack of clarity.

Minister Oda made a decision which reflected the priorities and policies of our Government. We stand by Minister Oda and her decision.