I've had things to say about “apparent” before. I feel a number of sections in the Conflict of Interest Act already include an apparent conflict of interest, so my caution is I don't have a problem with putting that word in. I note that Mr. Fraser from B.C. suggested the cow is out of the barn, or whatever the expression was he used, and that everybody would want an apparent conflict of interest. My caution is if an apparent conflict of interest is put in, be careful which sections it applies to. I took a look at the B.C. legislation and I see there are sections that do not include apparent conflict of interest and there are some that do. So it would be very important, if you're going to stick that word in, to take a look at how it will affect the whole act.
The minister we're talking about in relation to those apparently contradictory rulings put a conflict of interest screen in place, in consultation with us, after we had looked at the case, which again I reiterate had to do with a gift. That, it seems to me, is evidence that there's no real reason why the lobbying rules and my act rules have to be identical—and even if they were put together, they would not necessarily have to be identical—because her overlay was whether the actions of the lobbyists placed the minister in a conflict of interest, or a potential one. And, indeed, we thought they may well have, but we couldn't foresee the future.
So I think one has to be very careful about what you're doing with the exact wording in each of those instruments. But I don't have a problem in most cases with applying “apparent”. It may not apply appropriately in all sections of the act.