My first question is for Mr. Stark.
I was saying that I agree with you about your distinction between conflict of interest and corruption. I said it can certainly happen that a person is in a conflict of interest without recognizing it.
As to the work of the Ethics Commissioner, I would say that a lot of work has to be done proactively rather than reactively. Consider for example if someone is found to be in the wrong or in a conflict of interest and is sanctioned in some way. Now, a person may be in a conflict of interest voluntarily. In that case, the commissioner might conclude that it is an instance of corruption. That said, I agree with that approach.
What interests me though is that ethics, which is a higher standard than the law, must be proactive. In my opinion, restoring public trust in an institution requires consideration of apparent conflicts of interest. I agree with you on that.
In this case, when the Ethics Commissioner meets with the elected official, he must tell him not only that he must not be in a conflict of interest, but also that he must not be in an apparent conflict of interest. So if the elected official is careful not to be in an apparent conflict of interest, it is unlikely that he will be in a conflict of interest involuntarily.
I expect you would agree with me on that. You may answer that question with a yes or a no.
My other question is more in-depth.