Again, it's like the earlier use of suffisants used by Monsieur Paquette. Now it is “adequately”. This is the judgment you have to make on whether they have been addressed adequately.
To go to your point about the use of terminology, such as “CIDA's decision” or “the department's decision”, that's the parlance for talking about a decision that has been taken with the minister's approval. Typically, it's referred to as a departmental decision or a CIDA decision. That may be the common practice. I don't mean to suggest that it's not. It may be that in answer to question number 106, when the answer refers to “the CIDA decision”, some members took that as indicative that the decision was based not only on the minister's approval or the minister's input but on CIDA's input. I can't answer for how members might have read that.
I don't think one should, however, allow this way of talking--“CIDA decision, departmental decision”--to be used as a shield to obscure the distinction between a decision taken or a recommendation coming from the professional level, the departmental level, and the ministerial decision, which is political. There is an important distinction there.
I think members give weight to whether a decision of the government is supported by the professionals whose careers are engaged in that field. They don't mean to say that it has to be followed, but they're interested to know if it is the case. When it's the case that the ministerial decision is not along the lines of what's recommended, that raises questions, understandably, from parliamentarians, who have a great respect for public servants and for departments of government.
The onus, then, is on the minister to explain why the minister did not follow the recommendation of the officials, keeping in mind that it is not the case that parliamentarians would know that a decision of the government was not in step with departmental officials. Arguably, parliamentarians have no right to know that, because the only ones accountable to the House are the ministers. They're the ones who make the decisions. If they decide they're not going to fund, they have to account for that. They can't either blame their officials for making the wrong recommendation or say, “Well, I did that because the officials told me I should do that.” They're responsible. They're accountable.