It is difficult to prevent these informal meetings, but at the same time, I would say that lobbying activity does not have to be planned and deliberate in order to constitute lobbying activity.
Where should the line be drawn? I clearly stated in my conclusion earlier on that it was not a question of setting up a detective state. But we cannot stray from the rules regarding citizens who, for their part, want to know, but perhaps they want to know too much. They are somewhat curious and it is of course a certain kind of yellow journalism, if I can put it that way. As I was saying a while ago, it's a very difficult line to draw in the sand. As far as transparency and representations are concerned, both are legitimate and democratic. That is where we have to show some intelligence.
Let's go back to informal meetings. I think that in some respects, we have forgotten something in all of our activities, which is judgment. We cannot constantly rely on rules, with all due respect to legal professionals. Anglophones have an old adage which is not an invitation to commit offences, as I emphasize, but it says the following: rules are made to be broken. Therefore, the more rules you create, the more people will try to get around them.
There has to be a measure of reasonableness in all of this. I am not in a position to state what the rules should be, to say "this is the truth or this is where the line should be drawn". I do not have that authority and I think that in your discussions among yourselves you will be able to find where that line should be drawn.