Mr. Bains, if you read the report, you'll know that it suggests that the minister is required to appoint a satisfactory number of board members. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to suggest that maybe you did, in fact, do the work needed, as the minister responsible, to appoint the satisfactory number.
The issue that the Auditor General is pointing out is the fact that the board was then reduced to two people. These two people, including Ms. Verschuren, would go on—and it would be difficult during their tenure at that time of the board—to engage in direct conflicts of interest that the Auditor General has found to be pertinent to many companies, including her own company, that had received government funds. This is the crux of the issue, Mr. Bains, one I think Canadians want serious attention paid to and one that needs real accountability.
I understand that you have to get going in five minutes, and this is going to be probably my last round to ask questions. I do appreciate your being here. I don't necessarily appreciate the lack of answers, but that's your prerogative. My prerogative is to ask the questions, and your prerogative is to answer them. If you don't want to answer them or haven't read the report, that's completely up to you, and that's the sense I'm getting at this point, but I think you'd understand the issue that I have, that Canadians have and that the Auditor General has. You were responsible as a minister to ensure that the enabling legislation was followed and, at that time, was appropriately enforced.
The Auditor General is pointing out the very serious fact, Mr. Bains, that, during your tenure, that did not happen. In addition to these very serious concerns, there was a very legitimate issue that you were responsible for, which was the attendance of an assistant deputy minister named Mr. Andrew Noseworthy within your ministry. You were Mr. Noseworthy's supervisor, and you were directly responsible for him. You've met Mr. Noseworthy. Is that correct?