Well, I can't answer such a general question. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, and I've seen lots of scandals. We don't have a whistle-blower protection system that protects others, the many people who want to report wrongdoing, so it's an assessment I can't do.
In this case, though, we know that Ms. Wernick had a relationship with WE Charity going back a few years. I think that relationship.... As I mentioned, the small gifts and the building of a relationship is what lobbyists do, and they do it for a reason. They do it because clinical psychologists have proven that it influences people's relationships and their decisions. I think that's part of what happened here. There was an easy alternative, which Ms. Wernick knew, and which cabinet knew very well, and they just got tunnel vision instead of following the rules.
The rules are there to protect people from having tunnel vision and advancing their own private interests, the private interests of their family's favourite charities, or those of a favourite organization they have worked with. The rules are there to protect the public's money, and that's why the rules need to be strengthened. Loopholes need to be closed, and enforcement and penalties need to be put in place, because there are no penalties right now for violating those spending rules, other than maybe seeing an Auditor General's report five years from now saying that you violated the rules. Why would anyone follow a rule when there's no penalty?