In terms of the testimony, obviously one person's version of events may impact on the code and the act differently from somebody else's interpretation of the events. I'm thinking specifically about the Trudeau family's testimony that they were paid for speaking events, and then the organization said that it wasn't in fact for speaking; it was actually to have a relationship with corporations that in many cases the government would have some relationship with or would regulate.
In those cases, how would you make a determination with regard to whether or not they broke the code and the act, when one testifies that they were simply speaking to a bunch of youths and the other testifies that they were there to serve a corporate interest?