No. As I tried to explain before, the definition of recusal, under the old regime that they were under, included conflict of interest. It was just kind of a definition thing, but the technique that was used was conflict of interest, not recusal. Recusal is a last-minute absenting yourself from the room. I wanted to correct that because there's just a persistent misunderstanding of the difference between those two. People think that conflict of interest screens are something new. That's been the process for years.
Now, on to your question. I think one can only assume that these individuals have a certain level of integrity and that they want to comply with the legislation. We don't start off with the assumption that they're trying to avoid complying with the legislation. And do you know what? The only thing I can say is that in any case, where somebody's not complying with the act, one hopes that the truth will out, that sooner or later one will find out it's not being complied with. You can't do too much in secret anymore these days. One has to rely, to some extent, on the integrity of the individuals, but making it very clear as to what their obligations are. And yes, these conflict screens do require the imposition of another individual to intercede and stop stuff from getting to the person who has the screen.
I don't know that I can say much else. The more things you have to watch out for, the more complex it becomes.