Thank you for your questions and your support, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné and Ms. Blaney. I appreciate it.
It's a bit far back in my mind, but every year or so, an annual review took place. This is standard practice for all boards of directors. A business plan or strategic plan is always drawn up. It's an opportunity to discuss these things.
A detailed process review is often carried out in subcommittees. I sat on one committee—the program review committee—solely because of my technical skills. I was invited because of my technical skills, meaning my skills in engineering, physics and finance.
A governance committee was set up to look at governance issues, but I never sat on it as a member. That would be a good question to ask the people who sat on that committee. However, I can tell you that the processes implemented for the annual report or the business plan provide an opportunity for a board member to put forward ideas. This happened a number of times, for example to get an update on program changes. The Auditor General referred to this in her report.
To answer your question, I would say that this was done in part. However, perhaps it wasn't done as clearly as you're describing today, after the fact. There were processes, but the approach certainly wasn't perfect. No organization is perfect.
I would like to give some advice or make an observation. One thing that I really appreciated at the Canada Infrastructure Bank was the creation of a perfect registry to record real and potential conflicts of interest. Each member also had a detailed record. We didn't have this type of registry at SDTC. It would have helped us a great deal. I think that the infrastructure bank did a good job in this area.