That's true, but as a person overseeing the governance of this organization, I would think you would be more concerned not just with the eligibility but with the overall issues that have been identified in the culture of conflict of interest in the organization's board and management. Most of the management is still there. In the culture of conflict of interest, of the 226 projects that the Auditor General audited out of the 420, 82% of board member-approved transactions involved conflicts for board members. To me, that goes to an eligibility issue as well, because there is no way those nine directors represented 82% of the clean-technology community in Canada.
Are you explaining to me that the board, in the review that's going on with the third party, isn't delving at all into the issue of the conflicts of interest that were identified and whether or not these companies got preferential treatment because of their connections with board members? Is that not part of the review?