Oh, my goodness. When I left the office, I picked out some that I thought I would highlight. I have them here. I'll just run through them.
Increasing transparency around gifts was one of them. Another was lowering the threshold for disclosure.
There are some terminology issues in there. The code covers entities, but the act covers only persons. Entities, sometimes, should be covered as well. There are some proposals I made to diminish the onerous provisions over people. I won't go into them.
Strengthen the post-employment obligations. There's no reporting obligation for a post-employment person. The rules just tend to go on for a year or two post-employment. There are rules that have to be followed. It would be good if there were slight reporting obligations there. For some non-reporting public office holders, there might be a couple of areas they should be reporting on. They're not covered.
I mentioned harmonizing some of the provisions of the act and the members' code, because it's confusing to members, especially those who are ministers, when there are two different rules.
Then I mentioned one in my opening remarks. I do think section 11 creates.... There is no definition of “friend”. It doesn't need to be an exception to that gift rule, because “reasonably be seen to have been given to influence” does it, anyway. If they were a friend and it's not in a funny circumstance, it would have done it anyway. That's something that was unnecessary there and I think it could be improved.
There are a lot. As I said, I have 75. I'd say 30 of them are probably technical, drafter's little nitpicks. There are some, in a couple of places, where the French and English aren't exactly the same—all sorts of things. There's nothing dramatic, I don't think, with those exceptions.
That's a little smattering.