Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to turn my questioning again to the appointment process and ways I believe the appointment process could have been enhanced to avoid what was a very serious issue of conflict of interest, or at least ways to recommend we make it better.
In testimony during some of this work prior to today's meeting, Ms. Verschuren actually mentioned that the reason she didn't recuse herself was that she had a legal opinion not to recuse herself in relation to over 100 companies receiving similar funding, including the Verschuren Centre, which is one of the more severe instances of the conflict of interest. She was unaware at that time of the rules to follow, the proper process for a recusal and the potential for a conflict of interest.
I believe the perceived conflict of interest could have been identified earlier on, particularly in this process. It seems to me there was a gap between the person who was being appointed through the selection process.... You said there were five checks to determine whether or not there were existing conflicts.
At any time, did Ms. Verschuren ever mention the Verschuren Centre?