Mr. Chair, to go from the theoretical to the practical is not easy in this domain. I dare say that ought not diminish the importance of the theoretical here. These principles have served the system well, over centuries.
I don't know that I can answer your question, Mr. Owen, in terms of “as if by operation”. Lawyers would say that by operation of law or of circumstance, having recused himself as a minister, he would be cleansed, as it were, once he stepped into the chamber and addressed whatever issue might be before the House, because it's so general and he's a member of a general class in his role as a member of Parliament. In other words, in his role as a member of Parliament, he is addressing a very general issue and he's not addressing an issue that in all likelihood has any direct particular benefit to him or her as an individual.
That's a question of the facts, and it's also a question of perception. In my view, a lot of what's driving this is the perception of conflicts in terms of confidence in public officials, so they want to be pure as the driven snow to be sure there is no perception of conflicts. For many in this room who might not think there is a real conflict that ought to be given serious attention, some members of the public might think it is something that warrants serious attention.
I think the idea was that if you have a conflict that involves a private interest on a matter before the House, you should recuse yourself. But you're right, members of Parliament sitting in this committee or elsewhere might take the view that this is not an interest of a kind that warrants any recusal, but the minister might take a different view, for other valid reasons, given the different contexts the minister is in.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know whether you can assume that doing it for one context will necessarily be sufficient or adequate in the other context, or vice versa.
I don't know if I answered your question.