You're absolutely right. We are considered the gold standard in terms of conflict of interest for the way we handle it, the way we insist on disclosures, the way we verify and the way we make public any breaches of the COIA.
The reason I put five changes in my annual report is just to make the act a little bit smoother and easier to administer. For instance, exchange-traded funds are controlled assets, and somebody who's appointed or elected, like you, is not allowed to own them. Why not? How can you influence anything by owning exchange-traded funds? They are, in effect, the same as mutual funds in terms of their effect, but at the time the act was drafted, there were no exchange-traded funds, so that's why they're not listed there.
Another one is, for instance, that you may not be employed or do anything outside of your job. There are a lot of people who want to teach, even pro bono, at the university or share their opinions, etc., but they can't do that, because in order to be a teacher at the university, the union insists you be employed by the university and then you're employed and you can't do it.
Why not give me the discretion to ask, “Is it relevant or not?” If it's not, but it benefits the public, like my teaching example, by all means, go ahead. This is the sort of thing we should be doing here: trying to make the act a little bit easier to use, both for the users and for me as an administrator, because you want to be able to attract good people into the public service and to minimize the conflict of interest if it's irrelevant.