Do we need to clarify the definitions of apparent versus perceived conflict of interest? I remember serving as a member of the Mississauga Committee of Adjustment, a small zoning body where we dealt with very small zoning issues in Mississauga. I remember that when I was first appointed to that as a volunteer citizen member, I had to sign a declaration. We were always read the riot act on the pecuniary conflict of interest and whether we had a pecuniary conflict, which really meant financial. Would you financially benefit personally because you participated in the debate, even a debate on an application? Maybe it was your next door neighbour who was wanting to build an illegal swimming pool and it would affect your property value, or you worked for a company and a subsidiary company was involved and had an application before the committee. I quite often declared a conflict of interest at the beginning of the meeting and excused myself from the room. I did not participate.
Are our rules in the federal legislation strong enough to give these proper definitions of where there could be direct financial benefit? Or is that something that we as a committee, through this review, need to look at when considering these definitions to make sure that they are very clear? I think there's a different story between an inadvertent conflict of interest, when you meant no harm and weren't totally aware of a conflict, versus obviously something where you stand to benefit as a designated public office holder, or if anyone else covered under the legislation would. This is where there's obviously a direct financial impact, where you or a family member would directly benefit. Have we got the definitions right so far or is there more work we need to do in setting those definitions?