We have two sides to the question here. One side says that the minister said that she never supported the grant and tried to make that clear, and did to Parliament, is correct. The other side is saying that the document presented to Parliament, which purported to represent the agreement of three individuals to something, is not correct.
The second one, in my view, is a contempt of Parliament; the first is not. I can't see any consensus coming out of this with the two different views.
Again, I apologize for the errors in my presentation, but I was writing it in haste to try to get something on paper so we could discuss it. I appreciate the government side pointing those out to me.
Thank you, sir.