Right, and she was a Conservative donor at that.
I think Mr. Cooper said “conflict-ridden”. He might not know what that means, because when you actually read the Ethics Commissioner's report, you see that it goes through just a single conflict with respect to NRStor. The fact that she's on the board of the Verschuren Centre and the fact that she's on the board of MaRS are not a pecuniary conflicts in the same way that we would understand a conflict.
Regardless, she seeks formal advice. I don't know if you've read the Ethics Commissioner's report, but in the end, Ms. Verschuren was advised that her conflict with NRStor and other potential conflicts would not prevent her from accepting the appointment as long as she followed the rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act.
To your understanding, this is not the first time someone would have had a conflict in being appointed to a board. That's why we have the Conflict of Interest Act to manage it, and if this was “conflict-ridden”, surely you wouldn't have appointed her. However, in your view, should her roles at NRStor, the Verschuren Centre and MaRS have precluded her from being appointed, given her credibility otherwise and given that the Ethics Commissioner said the conflict could be managed?