We did not look at her appointment. That's not our job. Our job is to look at her, not the steps that led to her appointment. Once she is appointed, does she have a conflict, and how can it be resolved?
By the way, what we did find is, and let's make it quite clear, that she received incorrect legal advice, and that was the real problem. Her advice was because COVID was an emergency, conflict of interest issues did not apply. That was absolutely wrong. She followed that advice and voted on the subsidies that were given to all companies, injections in order to help them survive the COVID crisis.
I found that she shouldn't have done that. She should have recused herself and should have walked out of the room, because the vote affected a company in which she had an interest. She didn't do that. The record clearly shows that she was told no conflict of interest was there.
I spoke to her counsel. I cross-examined and said, “On what basis?” He said, “On my knowledge of basic corporate law.”
There's no corporate law that I know of that says that, because there's an emergency, conflict of interest does not apply. It was just incorrect advice that she followed.