I will not agree. There was no intention to mislead the House. I gave the facts. I used common phraseology.
If phrasing could have been better, if it led to confusion, yes, I will say that I could have done a better job of making sure the phrasing and response actually reflected and was in response to the information that was trying to be ascertained. There was no intention to mislead the House when I referred to the CIDA decision.
As I have clearly articulated, once the decision is made, it's common practice...and I would thereafter always refer to any decision that I made as a CIDA decision as the agency's decision.