Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me just quote right from the beginning what the minister said today in the House that would indicate the issue at hand. She said, “I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.”
She had already stated that about the way this case was handled, and she's taking full responsibility of the fact. Not only that, Mr. Chair, but even the parliamentary secretary--and at this time I want to welcome the new parliamentary secretary here, my friend from Kootenay--apologized to the House for the statements that he had made.
So Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points here. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that when somebody does make a mistake and does this thing, the appropriate thing is to apologize and say this was unfortunate and overlooked and so she made an apology. Let me just read what she said: “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 parliamentary secretary has apologized and now the minister has apologized. Now, having said that, I think this committee should take into cognizance the fact that an apology has been made and it should be taken in that context that she has accepted responsibility, as a minister should accept responsibility.
But having said that, a couple of questions were raised about the nature of funding to the organization Kairos and the way the document was doctored or CIDA officials were misled, which is not true.
The way it works.... And there are only a few people on the other side who were in government, but the others in the opposition.... The way it works is the department is right to make a recommendation, but the ultimate decision is the minister's to make, based on the government's priorities.
She made that decision. She has said that, and she now has made it very clear that the decision that she made was her decision and not the department's.
So it is a normal purview in running a government that this is a normal course of events. This is not something extraordinary or something that is not a normal state of the facts. The normal state of the facts is that the departments can make the recommendations on whatever they do, but the ultimate authority in a democracy is the parliament, is the minister who is responsible, and that is what happened in this case.
Having recognized that, I do not think that the committee should waste its time in looking at whether the facts met the criteria or did not meet the criteria. Okay? That is not the issue, whether Kairos met the criteria of the department or what. The decision, even if it met the criteria, was ultimately the minister's decision, as is recognized in a parliamentary democracy, and she has made very clear in the House today that she was ultimately responsible.
So I think when we come along and start talking about whether Kairos did or did not meet the criteria does not make it come very clear from the decision that was made. From the statement that she made, she, as the minister responsible for development aid, made the decision of exactly what she wanted to say.
Now comes the issue of the question of “not”. She said it quite clearly in a statement today in the House: it was unfortunate the way it was handled.