Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, the team will have to go back through lots of details in our file in order to be able to answer that question. We'll see what we can provide to the committee.

Public Accounts committee  We were. With two, there was a crossover. It's actually quite complicated. There is the conflict of interest crossover “double-up” in instances, but there were definitely at least two projects that we deemed ineligible that were cases in which a conflict of interest had been declared and the person continued to vote.

Public Accounts committee  I would describe two instances that, we believe, did not follow the contribution agreement. The contribution agreement is clear that funding should always be given based on merit, project by project. For the seed stream of projects and then the COVID payments, there was batch approval, which we believe should not have been done that way.

Public Accounts committee  Absolutely. Sixty-three cases of COVID payments were in conflict of interest. Later on, the way the COVID payments were approved did not follow the contribution agreement. There are two things at play with those payments.

Public Accounts committee  The contribution agreement between the federal government and the foundation really sets out how they should determine eligibility.

Public Accounts committee  They would have to demonstrate that it's a new technology, that it's innovative, and that there would be tangible environmental benefits for the Canadian population.

Public Accounts committee  If you permit me, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask Mathieu to answer that.

Public Accounts committee  It comes back to how we did our sampling. We did a statistical sample, because we couldn't sample all projects that were available. We looked at those in the allegations, and those were separate, but in our statistical sample, we felt that there were enough errors that at least one in 10 projects in the streams that remained was also likely ineligible, which is why we made the recommendation that it wasn't just the 10 we found and that they needed to do more work to determine whether there were others.

Public Accounts committee  I think it's a fundamental rule that if you're involved in a public organization, you should not be seen to be personally benefiting from public funds.

Public Accounts committee  I think it depends how you're going to frame it. Every case needs to be evaluated on its own merit.

Public Accounts committee  If I may, Mr. Chair, there's just one point of clarity I'd like to provide. The 90 cases were not linked to this. The example the member is talking about is cases that we highlighted where there are other instances—

Public Accounts committee  I'm getting to that. Those were other instances that we felt the conflict of interest policy for the foundation just did not address. In our view, this is a risk. While it wasn't directly linked to funding, it was definitely a conflict of interest that should have been declared, and the board should have been made aware of it sooner, yes.

Public Accounts committee  When we concluded that there were 10 projects that were ineligible, two were clearly the seed funding, because we felt it did not comply at all with the contribution agreement, but the remaining eight were cases where the file just didn't support why these projects were eligible.

Public Accounts committee  We chose the audit period based on the previous audit. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development performed an audit in 2017. We focused on what had happened since that time. I just want to make sure that—

Public Accounts committee  No. In 2017, he had to determine whether the projects would actually—