On that point, actually, I'm glad you mentioned the word “perceived”. Professor Arthur Schafer, from the University of Manitoba law school—he's a professor of ethics—wrote a piece in The Globe and Mail recently, and there's a very on-point paragraph in his article. I'm going to read it to you. It says:
Conflict of interest does not require that bias actually occur, only that there is reason to fear that bias may be present. The risk of bias, not the exercise of bias, is what makes both our imaginary scenario and the WE Charity imbroglio real conflicts of interest.
Essentially, I think what he's saying is that even the perception of a conflict of interest should have been enough for both the Prime Minister and the finance minister to recuse themselves in all manner required under the Conflict of Interest Act.
Would you agree with Professor Schafer's assessment?