Thank you.
If I may, Professor, respectfully, I don't agree with that. In fact, even Ms. Margaret Biggs, the president of CIDA, admitted and has stated publicly that the document they sent over, the internal document--this inter-office memo, in other words--did not have a place in it for the minister to register her disapproval of the recommendation.
They admitted that was something they should have corrected, and they're taking steps to correct it, so that now, the documents--either recommending or not recommending a grant--that go to a minister from CIDA would have an opportunity, a space, where the minister could say “Yes, I agree with your recommendation” or “No, I do not agree”.
Mrs. Biggs says that was the root of the problem here. She didn't have a problem. CIDA officials themselves did not have a problem with the manner in which Minister Oda replied to them indicating her displeasure and her disapproval.
So I guess my point is—and this is where we could debate, and I don't think it's necessary to debate it—that if the CIDA officials did not have a problem, if they understood completely the minister's wishes, they were not offended by her inserting the word “not”, because they understood that was just a transmittal of intention of the minister to not fund Kairos. If they didn't have a problem with that, if they understood what the minister's wishes were, why then should we have a problem with that?