Yes. It just occurred to me what would be really different in Bill C-2 if you stuck in the definition of lying by the American scholar Sissela Bok, who wrote a book in 1978 called Lying , because the U.S. administration was lying to the American people on Vietnam. Her definition of lying is pretty damned rigorous; it is “any intentionally deceptive message that is stated”.
Now, if you go back to the interview with Erik Neilsen by Peter Gzowski some years ago, where Neilsen said there's a hell of a lot of lying by politicians--in fact, it was worse than what I've just said. But if that was the criterion for what you call lying, it would be very powerful indeed.
I don't think there's a hope in heck of Bill C-2 including that, but you might consider what is a definition, a criterion for lying, versus not. It's something the committee could consider and see if they can put in something of that nature.