I get that.
Section 11 says:
reasonably seen to have been given to influence the public office holder
I'm talking about the Kielburgers' relationship. I'm talking about the Prime Minister's responsibility under subsection 6 where he reasonably should know that he's now in a conflict of interest, because nobody else would know that the family had financial relations. That wasn't public. WE knew that the family was involved in WE, but WE understood that everybody was a volunteer. It's up to the Prime Minister in that moment.
I'm harping on this because I notice that the Prime Minister, when he gave his testimony, kept talking about section 2, which defines family as spouse and children, but section 3 talks about being related by birth, marriage, common law or adoption, and it's a larger sense of relative. It seems that the Prime Minister was very aware of his definition under section 2, but under section 3 certainly the financial arrangements the Kielburgers made with his direct family and their family name put him in that compromised position.