The activities actually occurred in September 2009, which was after the court ruling dealing with the issue of fundraising came out in March 2009. That's where the issue of conflict of interest came in. As I've mentioned, it brought in that whole tension or the obligation being created between the private interest and the public office holder's duty to serve the public good. It also provided me with a clear direction in looking at conflict of interest, that it should include not only the real conflict of interest but also the apparent conflict of interest.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, as I understand it, when Commissioner Dawson looked at the same situation vis-à-vis the minister, she was looking at whether the minister had received a gift, I believe. She determined the minister had not received a gift. But as I indicated in my reports both on Michael McSweeney and Will Stewart, as was mentioned earlier in the committee, they had actively worked on a fundraising campaign by selling tickets at the same time they were lobbying the minister and her department.
So that decision actually is quite consistent with the direction the court case had provided me.