Yes, thank you very much. I'd be happy to.
I want to clarify one thing. At the time this situation was under review with the internal audit, there was a recognition that there was a potential for conflict of interest, so one thing that was driving us in the department was to assess whether there had been wrongdoing, first of all from a criminal perspective. That's why the matter was referred to the RCMP on two separate occasions: to formally ask the RCMP to investigate. I've mentioned their response. We also followed up the aspect of mismanagement from a labour relations perspective, and so there was a specific focus on the individual who had responsibility for generating the conflict of interest situation.
I want to assure the committee that it wasn't as though we were not aware. It was just not specified as a specific reference. There was certainly cause for seeing a failure of management, and there was a complete review in terms of any kind of criminal negligence on the part of either of the parties to the contribution agreement.
Speaking specifically from a conflict of interest perspective, as I mentioned earlier, we now have a specific policy on conflict of interest. We have included language in our contribution agreements, and as well, we have added specific reference—which we had, from a risk management profile, since 2006—and have been looking at every potential proponent as a recipient of a contribution agreement to assess for risk. Part of that would be to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. It's the specific focus of conflict of interest for which we have now added as language to our contribution agreements three very specific clauses.