I would like to follow up on section 11, because it's the reason we seem to have been given to influence the office-holder, because it is the creation of that relationship that, when you come at a later time, you've already developed an improper relationship through how you've set that up.
One of the things that's been really surprising with the Kielburgers, and I'm not asking you to prejudge the work of Commissioner Dion.... We know that Margaret Trudeau is a very well-known public speaker. We were very surprised to find that WE had not paid any of the other speakers. WE told the board that none of the other speakers were being paid, but Margaret and Sacha Trudeau were being paid, and that wasn't being told to the board. That would be reasonably seen as putting the Prime Minister in a conflict, don't you think, as there is now a direct financial commitment to his family of upwards of half a million dollars.
I would like to go back to section 6, which is connected to section 11, “if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in making a decision, he would be in a conflict”. That financial commitment that the Kielburgers made to his family put him in a difficult situation.