Thank you, Chair. I will try to be very brief.
I think in my community there might have been at least one group impacted by that funding. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there was at least one.
Here is the question I have. You approach NGOs, for the most part, and you say to them, “We're pretty sure that this money is going to be here and we want you to upfront it.” Now, clearly there was a gap of 12% at least, and that's where I want to focus, because for those 12% there was some harm done in some communities.
Here is what I don't get. If the government is saying to them, look, you're all but sure.... What percentage was the government telling these NGOs? Was it 98% guaranteed, in which case those who wouldn't take the risk look like they should be a little less cautious? However, if you said to them that there is a 70% to 80% chance they're going to get it, I can see board members, especially in this day and age, saying, “Wait a minute. Given the way politics goes in this country, I'm not going to justify our spending $200,000 that we may end up not having.”
How did that happen? How did we go so far?
I'll finish with this. I'm assuming that you couldn't give them a 100% commitment, because that would be a decision. It was something less than 100%, but how much? Where was the problem? Was it with these groups that should have taken signals that the money would be there? Was that the problem? Or did the government fail to signal sufficiently that it would not leave them high and dry, and they would be okay, like 99%?
Help me understand, please.