I guess the issue is that it's a question of public confidence, of Canadians being able to trust that the system that's in place is adequately ensuring that there is no conflict of interest.
In the case of an individual entering office, being elected, serving as Prime Minister, having significant investments and having those investments go into the blind trust, when the Ethics Commissioner tells us that there is not really a lot of churn of those investments, they know what's in there. The conflict of interest screen, then, is administered by direct reports to the Prime Minister, and the perception can be, and is, that there is a conflict and that a prime minister is continuing to take decisions that further their own financial interest. There is no reporting to the public on when a conflict of interest screen has been triggered or if it has ever been triggered.
The higher imperative, I would say, or the leading imperative, is that we ensure that Canadians have confidence in public office holders in public institutions, and they don't seem to have that.
Would you care to reflect on your time as clerk of the Privy Council? You served a prime minister who was found to have broken the act that we're studying and who was twice found guilty of breaking that law in 10 different instances. That's based on the regime as it currently exists. You must have some suggestions on improvements, so that we can avoid a situation where we find a prime minister who is repeatedly breaking this law.