I accept that totally, with one qualification. My understanding is that the two senior public servants signed the document and then subsequently the “not” was put in. In other words, they signed the document saying that the grant should be made, and the document, once signed by the minister, had reversed that intention.
I believe that, in the law, that is not a good thing to do. I believe that if the minister had wanted to make it absolutely clear, there should have been an additional letter saying “I cannot sign the document. I do not support this and therefore it's rejected.”
Apart from that, I agree that my statements are not correct, and I apologize. What I tried to do.... And you'll notice I was very cautious in what I said there, that this is my understanding. I appreciate your correcting me on them all.
Again I raise the question, and I won't back down on this: Isn't the significant issue that the document, as it was presented to the committee in its original form, had the “not” in it and the two signatures, which implies, insofar as I know the law, that those signatures were put on to support the document as it was presented?