Let me just say that the Liberals continue to be confused on this issue, because he continuously says that the minister was in error when she stated that it was a CIDA decision, and that she should have stated it was her decision. I beg to differ.
In fact, if Mr. McKay was listening at committee--and I know he was--I can only come to the conclusion that he's trying to confuse or mislead this committee, because at committee during direct testimony, the minister stated on several occasions--and this was confirmed by Madame Biggs, the president of CIDA--that when the minister makes a decision concerning CIDA, it becomes a CIDA decision, bottom line. I asked her that directly. There should be no confusion. A minister's decision makes it a CIDA decision.
Mr. McKay also went on to ask why she didn't at any time state in the months preceding committee hearings that it was her decision. I would point out that at the December 9 committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs she said on several occasions that it was her decision. The two statements are not contradictory; they are compatible. It was her decision; therefore, it became a CIDA decision.