I would just like to review the timeline here.
I was the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, when this matter came to light during the winter of 2010. We asked a number of questions. The minister's version of the events, which she claims has remained unchanged, is difficult to believe.
On November 27, 2009, she rejected CIDA's recommendation and the word “not“ was inserted at her request. Whether she was the one who inserted the word, or whether someone else actually did, is not really that important here.
On November 30, 2009, KAIROS officials received a telephone call and were informed that they did not meet the funding criteria. They were not told that it was a CIDA decision, only that they would be getting a more detailed report. KAIROS never did receive that report. Over the winter of 2010, one question arose: why did KAIROS lose its funding?
At the time, the government—the parliamentary secretary as well as the minister—implied that the decision to cut the funding was made by CIDA, ostensibly because KAIROS did not meet its criteria.
You mentioned the statement made on March 15, 2010 by the parliamentary secretary and the answer to question 106 on the Order Paper of April 23, 2010. I would like to call your attention to an answer given on that very same day, that is April 23, 2010, in the House:The criteria for the funding of KAIROS is the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. KAIROS did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.
Everyone believed that the minister was talking about CIDA's criteria. Yet, she knew full well that this was a political decision, and although I disagree with it, it is entirely legitimate nevertheless
The controversy subsequently subsided a bit and was no longer a topic of conversation. Of course, there are always new issues that can stir up some indignation on our part.
On December 9, at the same time as the document containing the infamous word “not“ obtained under the Access to Information Act was released, the minister appeared before the committee and announced that the decision to end the funding had always been hers.
The controversy was rekindled. Vague questions were asked. It wasn't until February 14 last, more than one year later, that the minister clarified the situation. Doubts had persisted for this entire period of time.
The opposition parties were not alone in questioning this version of the facts. Indeed, the following day, virtually every editorial in Canada and Quebec called for the minister's resignation.
Do you not think that the amount of time that elapsed gives us sufficient reason to find that the minister took advantage of the situation, at the very least, to suggest that the decision was CIDA's and not hers, and that CIDA's criteria, not her own criteria, factored into the decision? Do we not have sufficient reason to think that?