Thanks, John.
The last back-and-forth was instructive, because you have the Conflict of Interest Commissioner saying that this is de minimis. It was a $1,200 stake, a 1% stake in a company that was one of 63 companies that were being funded in a bundled package in the midst of COVID. As well, we have a Conservative member saying, “How dare you find this to be de minimis, this green slush fund?”
I want to pick up from that, because when I hear that language of “green slush fund”, it sounds like bribery or embezzlement. It sounds like fraud. It sounds like there is something criminal there.
There were 90 conflicts of interest identified by the Auditor General in which processes were not followed. In 96 cases, they were followed. In 90 cases, they weren't followed. That's damning on its own, as you've said; in almost half of the cases, the policies were not appropriately followed, and 63 of those cases were those two COVID votes.
You've done a proper report with respect to Ms. Verschuren. You found two ethics violations. You did a proper report for Mr. Ouimet. You found that there was an ethics violation that was so de minimis that it was not of sufficient concern.
For the Canadian public who have followed these proceedings in passing and have heard language like criminal accusations and about “green slush fund”, you've looked at this in detail. You have the expertise. Is there any reason to think that there was criminal conduct here?