The conflict of interest management procedures are rigorously followed. It's important to note that the act introduced in 2001 to constitute SDTC requires that directors come from the green technology industry and that they be connected. The legislator has thus put in place a recipe for creating conflicts of interest. Accordingly, we have had thoroughly rigorous practices in place to manage them from the start.
Every time a file is submitted to the governance committee, we provide those who receive it with a list of businesses, stakeholders, shareholders and and officials involved and we ask them whether they have any conflicts of interest. As a result, a person can immediately see whether he or she has a real, perceived or potential conflict and, if so, immediately recuses. From that point, the individual receives no documentation and does not participate in decision-making.
The list of individuals in conflict of interest is noted at the start of every meeting of a decision-making, investment or advisory committee. From what I understand of the subsequent reports, in certain cases, there is no indication that a particular person left the meeting at a particular moment or subsequently returned. However, since the practice was known to everyone, that person declared a conflict of interest at the start of the meeting, recused himself or herself during consideration of the file in question and subsequently returned to the meeting. I have been attending board meetings in my capacity as director since 2018; I attended those meetings in another capacity starting in 2006, and I regularly witnessed recusals by all the directors of several generations.