Thank you.
I wish we had more time.
I do want to go back to a couple of things you said. I agree with Mr. McKay on one thing. I think the question here really is one of intent. Was there an intent to mislead the House? I think you've verified that this is the crux of the issue before us.
What we heard in testimony today was that the famous document with the word “not” inserted was an internal document rather than a parliamentary document. I categorize that as more of an inter-office memo than anything else. This document was intended to communicate, between the officials at CIDA and the minister, the minister's intention to fund or not fund Kairos.
As you've stated, it may not have been the best method by which to communicate. But when the minister told her staff to communicate back to the CIDA officials who sent in a recommendation that she did not accept their recommendation and in fact did not wish to fund Kairos, that's when the “not” was inserted, and the signature arm, after that point, went in.
There was no confusion. There was no deception intended. There was no intent to mislead CIDA officials. And that point has been verified by the president of CIDA herself, who said that this was a normal course of action and that they understood completely what the minister's intentions were when they received this document back in their possession.
Given that, Mr. Walsh, would you not agree that if there was no intent to deceive, and certainly if the recipient of the document, that being Ms. Biggs, said that she understood that the intent of the word “not” being inserted was to communicate the minister's wishes and that there was not, she felt, any intent to deceive, that would dispel the argument that there was an intention to deceive, which the opposition seems to be promoting?