The whole reason we're here and the whole reason we have a production of documents motion, which was approved by the majority of House of Commons members of Parliament, to collect documents unredacted is that in that audit period, those 420 transactions that were approved by board members represent $856 million of taxpayer money. The Auditor General looked at only half of that and found that $330 million of projects were conflicted and $59 million of projects were ineligible. That's almost $400 million out of $800 million that was conflicted or spent incorrectly.
It boggles my mind that in trying to clean up the governance, which the minister said was his goal, by transferring it, getting rid of the board and having a new board.... Part of that process is saying, “Look, folks. These projects have a problem. They are conflicted. These board members.... The project may be legitimate, but how they got in and how they got funding was clearly preferential treatment over that of other businesses in the clean-technology space that didn't get funding.” For that not to be part of your review boggles my mind.
Will you commit here to mandating that the third party you have doing it ensures that conflicts of interest, which were a big part of the Auditor General's report, are part of your review?