And I know that my colleague Mr. Kerr will take the second round, so just quickly, I'd like to pick up on what Harold was talking about in terms of the subjectivity of some of your recommendations. To me it comes down to, in many cases, the matter of definition.
I have some difficulty with some of your recommendations, and I'll give you two quick examples.
Your recommendation six states:
That the Code be amended by adding prohibitions against personal solicitation of funds by Members where to do so could raise concerns relating to furthering private interests.
Would this prohibit MPs from participating in charity fundraising events, such as telethons and things like that? I mean, where do you draw the line?
I'll give you another example with respect to the definition of “friend”, and that's in recommendation seven, which states as follows:
That sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Code be broadened to include a prohibition against Members furthering the private interest of a relative or friend.
Well, “relatives” are easy to define, but how do you define “friend”? You know, what is a friend, what is an acquaintance?
You go on to talk about friends in recommendation eight in terms of a prohibition against participating in any discussion, debate, or whatever that might further the private interest of a friend.
That's almost impossible to really enforce. How do you define who is a friend and who is merely an acquaintance—or somebody you might have run into at a cocktail reception?