In my view, this is not particularly grey. Section 9 is clear. What creates the opportunity for clarification, and I'm not sure that's the same as a grey area—that's for you to explore—is the operation of section 64 in this other provision of the act, which speaks to not wanting to interfere with the ordinary activities of a member of Parliament.
I think it is clear that section 9 needs to constrain the other section. In other words, there shouldn't be any interference with the ordinary conduct of an MP's affairs, except to the extent that you cannot use a position of influence to affect an adjudicative or regulatory decision.
The public confidence metric is the key one. I heard a bit of the Privy Council representative's thoughts, and it goes to a particular appendix and particular language, and I don't want to speak to the specifics of what protocols or guidance exist and what needs to be revised. But the principled approach is pretty clear: it would make no sense to have a section like section 9 that sets a global restriction on any public office holder using that influence to get a particular result for any private or commercial interest if the exception were whenever you were doing so for a constituent, or where there was that other relationship.
That is not to say, with respect to Minister Flaherty, that there was an attempt to undermine the act or an attempt to act improperly. It's important to also remember the advice-giving and principle-clarifying role of this office and this legislation. The idea, in other words, I don't think should be just the ex-post moments where you can say someone contravened the act. The best-case scenario is where conduct can be governed by good advice and good, sensible distinctions based on the legislation.
So I don't think it's particularly grey, but having two competing provisions does raise the important moment to say here is how they live together. In this case, it is pretty clear how they live together, and section 9 has to prevail whenever there is any ambiguity. When you're sitting on the fence and don't know which way to go, the purpose of the act has to be the governing issue, and you don't have to be a lawyer to see why that would be the most sensible way to understand the legislation.