I think your position on that is a good one. That, incidentally, is my concern with “apparent”. As soon as you introduce an element of subjectivity, you've opened the door, I think, to the potential for more of the vexatious type of approaches, and we all want to avoid those.
My colleague opposite was addressing the penalties. On the administrative monetary penalties versus something a little more definitive such as apologies and dismissal, he talked about former public office holders. I wonder if, once an individual has left office and still falls within the five-year timeline of responsibility, the fact that the individual may be found in conflict—as my colleague stated—would not create a clear precedent for active public office holders that would be more valuable than going after that former public office holder.
I know we want to have rules and regulations that are administratively manageable, but I'm concerned that if we put it too far out there, we create so much disincentive to participating as a public office holder, let alone what happens after that.... You want to create rules and regulations that are going to apply within the framework of being here.
Would you have a comment on that? Am I off base or on base?