Just to make it very clear, there's no doubt in my mind that the minister's statement today in the House is not consistent with the answers to questions on December 9, 2010. I don't know how you square the two of them.
The transcript is here in front of me. When asked the question of “How did it get there?”, she says, “I do not know”. Again it was, “You don't know?”, and “I do not know”.
Something seems to have happened between December 9 and today to change her point of view of what happened. But this makes me very uncomfortable, because when we have ministers in front of us, we expect them to tell us the truth. I can only conclude that her answers simply aren't consistent with what she said today.
The second inconsistency is that the minister has constantly stated.... In French, she said on October 28:
“Après un examen rigoureux, les responsables ont décidé que la proposition de KAIROS ne respectait pas les normes gouvernementales.”
The parliamentary secretary said:
The criteria for the funding for Kairos is the same as the criteria for funding...anyone else.... Kairos did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.
The reason I'm so badly troubled is that one of the conclusions you come to from this document and the change in it is that the effect of the document is to make it look as if the senior officials of CIDA were in agreement with the decision not to fund, but from the testimony we have from Madam Biggs and the minister, it's very clear that there was a very different process under way and that in fact there was a very clear recommendation from CIDA that it was entirely compatible with the priorities of CIDA, and the minister is stating for her own reasons that it was simply not going to be funded.
So I think we do have a question of privilege. I don't throw these things around lightly, but I really do think there's a problem here. I just don't think we can have a minister coming in front of the committee, giving us statements that are untrue, and giving us answers to questions that prove to be inconsistent with the facts, for which she now appears to be providing yet another explanation.
I'm not satisfied with that. I don't think we have any choice but to get it back to the House as a question of privilege and let the Speaker rule on it.