Here's the question that I have, Commissioner, and it's along the lines of what Mr. Thériault was asking. When these screens are set up, wouldn't that cause a reasonable person to conclude that the public office holder is, in fact, benefiting from those deferred stock options, units and future bonuses, despite the fact that the blind trust is being set up? Now, if that public office holder, for example, were a prime minister whose major policy platforms were housing, infrastructure, EV mandates and all that stuff, wouldn't that cause a reasonable person to conclude that they are, in fact, benefiting—blind trusts and screens notwithstanding—as a result of the major policy decisions that are being made in this country? Wouldn't that cause a reasonable, thinking person to conclude that there is, in fact, a conflict, and that the person is benefiting as a result of these decisions?
