It all makes sense. The only thing I'll say to that is I appreciate having to review them one by one and case by case, but ultimately, the objective of that review is to then sort them into a category.
I think the frustration you're getting in some ways is because if there is a decision that was subject to a conflict where there was a failure to recuse, and the Ethics Commissioner would find, if he was reviewing every single case, that its approval was improper, it's important for us to know how that category would be dealt with.
It's not enough to say that in this particular case or in that particular case, they're unique. No. The problem will be the same. It might be a different company or it might be a different merit to the company, but the fundamental conflict problem may well be the same.
Again, it may not be clear in your mind yet what all of those categories are and what the process is for each category, but it would be helpful for us to understand them. There wouldn't be so much “yes or no” or back-and-forth if we properly understood it.
The only other thing I would leave you with—and it would be a help for this committee—is there is that one company, NRStor, that received funds. We know it was subject to an issue whereby the individual should have recused themselves but instead abstained. That's not criminal wrongdoing, Mr. Perkins, but it's nonetheless an ethics violation.
That particular case is emblematic of one category, so how one deals with that will suggest how one will deal with other similar cases. It would be good for us to know, in writing at some point, how the board intends to deal with that particular case.