Something struck me in your presentation, and I would like you to explain it further.
In point one, you say, “This change reflected the views of the Prime Minister on the desirability of the grant.” So you imply that the Prime Minister did not want KAIROS to have the grant.
The problem is not so much that the government cut the funding—although that constitutes another problem we could debate—as the way in which it was done. This was presented as being the result of a recommendation from CIDA, which wasn’t the case.
You referred to the Prime Minister. Here’s what I think happened. Hon. Bev Oda signed the document recommending the grant and, when the Prime Minister found out about it, he told her that he did not want the government to fund KAIROS. At that point, she had no choice but to falsify the document. Whether it was her or someone else, it doesn't matter.
You said that this change reflected the view of the Prime Minister. Yes, the minister is responsible, but don’t you think that the Prime Minister is also a responsible party in this whole matter?