I would say that's an overstatement.
I have several pages in my report where I point out that in fact the apparent conflicts and the potential conflicts are covered, to some extent, in the definition of “conflict of interest” and in certain other provisions. I go into the details of the provisions I give as examples.
I note that there are a number of provincial jurisdictions, at least a few, that have special provisions for apparent conflicts of interest—I think of British Columbia, for example—but their primary section on conflict of interest isn't identical to ours. The caution I put out is that you can't just stick words into an act because somebody else has them in there. You have to look at the provision you're sticking them into and whether it's really necessary.
I don't really care if you put an extra provision in there on apparent conflict of interest, because I think it's covered. But it will create some confusion in those sections where the “apparent” is very obviously covered, and it's building on that concept of conflict of interest.
All I'm saying is that if you put in an amendment to add “apparent”, you'd better take a look at all the sections it's going to affect and make sure it makes sense.
I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not militant against it.