I don't think so.
As an example, I remember that you would get invited to a lunch or a dinner or a reception organized by some lobby group or some corporation that is promoting its work or some point of policy that it's pressing the government to act on or something like that. That sometimes happens. You'd get invited to those things, and you'd go, but I don't feel that they influenced my view on the issue, unless something was put out by way of a talk or documents that were given out on that issue. But going to a reception or a lunch, where it's mostly social, I don't think has much impact on the way you think about an issue. It never seemed to for me. I don't know why there would be an argument that this is a gift that needs to be dealt with in some other way because it might influence your decision.
The limit of $500 makes sense, because if somebody is giving you something worth that much or more, it's fair enough, in my view, that the public hear about the fact that you have received such a gift, because it may be perceived as something that was given to you to influence you and to, in effect, buy your support for a certain cause or issue.
If it's less than that—or maybe that figure is bad, but I think it's a reasonable one—and if it's something that a lot of MPs are being given, then I don't see that it has much influence on public policy. That's my view. I just didn't see it as something that affected members that way.
As I recall, in discussions with members even before I was Speaker, I never heard them say they had gone to such-and-such a party and were now going to vote for something because of what happened there.
If you went to a committee hearing and the person who had hosted the party was at the committee and gave an article that was compelling, you might be influenced, but it wasn't the social event that did it; it was the argument in evidence and testimony that was persuasive, in my view. That's what I always seemed to hear.