"That Ministers have the prerogative to make funding decisions in their departments is not in dispute. But is this any way to run a department? Couldn’t new forms be printed with a “Do Not Fund” box to avoid confusion? Instead, we have government by handwritten insertion. With such improvisation, poor decision-making is sure to follow, and the potential for abuse is high.
And that is evident when you combine Ms. Oda’s testimony with that of Margaret Biggs, the president of the Canadian International Development Agency (effectively, Ms. Oda’s deputy minister). It is now clear that the Ms. Biggs had signed off on a “Yes” decision to fund Kairos before the “Not” was inserted."
Question for the Globe. Did you even bother to research anything before putting this to print? Apparently not. I notice you mention the head of Cida, Ms. Biggs. Perhaps it might have given your editorial a little more credibility if you had actually taken the time to look into Ms. Biggs testimony before committee previously. Most notably:
"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."
So those few sentences pretty much throw your whole editorial out the window, with not a shred of credibility left to go with it. Adding the word "not" was common practice. That practice has now been changed with a new form to allow for denial by the minister. Ms. Biggs also alluded to the fact she already knew the minister was not going to approve the Kairos funding ahead of the word not being added. The form, according to Biggs, was returned to her with the word "not" inserted, so she was fully aware of the change as well as denial of funding.
You know, I'm not a professional journalist. Nor am I a professional blogger. But I know the value of importance and having my facts straight before putting it out there for others to read. One would hope the Globe sees this, and sees fit to correct the record. It's something any newspaper that considers itself reputable would do. You might also want to check and see when the word "not" was inserted. The testimony is all there for all to see.