On the conflicts that were outlined by the Auditor General, the Auditor General took a sampling over five years of 226 projects during the time of the five-year audit. There were over 400 that the board approved at the time, and the Auditor General took a sampling of 226. Out of that 226, 186 votes in the board had a conflict. In other words, in 82% of the sample that the Auditor General took, board members were conflicted.
It sounds to me like the board members were overrepresented in the allocation of the roughly $800 million—$836 million—that those votes represented. Eighty-two per cent were going to conflicted board members.
We've had testimony before the committee that when you were appointed with a managed conflict—the first chair in the history of the SDTC to have a conflict and be appointed to chair this board—the culture changed. In fact, fellow board members and the former president testified that one board member said, “Oh, we can manage conflict, so I'm going to bring some projects back.”
Isn't it true that your leadership created a culture of conflict of interest that led to 82% of board members receiving a vast majority of the funds, over $330 million, for companies in which they had a conflict of interest? That wasn't happening before.
While you say it was done innocently, when 82% of board members, including yourself, are voting for things involving a conflict of interest, that doesn't look innocent; that looks like a plan.