Thank you.
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.