Information & Ethics committee  That is a good question, but I am not convinced. The whole issue of hospitality is not regulated right now. We decided on a limit of $40 per activity and $80 per year. In other words, if an association wants to hold more than two receptions, it will have to limit its budget for each reception.

Information & Ethics committee  That certainly cost more than $40.

Information & Ethics committee  It is not a lot, but it sends a message. If officials themselves can stick to that limit for hospitality when hosting people from outside, I do not know why lobbyists could not do the same thing. That is the first point. Secondly, I understand what you are saying about $80 when an organization has many members and wants to meet as many people as possible by holding a number of events.

Information & Ethics committee  Again, with any organizations that are registered to lobby, the individuals who are listed on the registry would be subject to this code of conduct. The Aga Khan is not someone who is registered to lobby. Therefore, he was not subject to it. This matter has gone to the courts and it's done.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  The teeth are that lobbyists are supposed to comply with it, and I am supposed to investigate when they don't and report it to Parliament. The teeth right now are reputational. It is a report to Parliament about someone who has breached the code. That's it.

Information & Ethics committee  It's reputational. Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  It's all very good. I'm extremely proud of my team. They have worked very hard on this. The client services people who work with lobbyists day in, day out will appreciate these rules. I think it's the clarity. I'm proud of the process. We've listened to people. We have looked at everything.

Information & Ethics committee  I agree with you.

Information & Ethics committee  Well, “unreliable” would be information that they are aware is not accurate. I think that's really all I can ask of them, or that I will be able to verify whether or not it is accurate. I don't have the resources to look at all the reports that you are given to make sure that they're accurate, valid and scientific.

Information & Ethics committee  It's interesting, because lining it up with a full election cycle also doesn't recognize that there are some political activities that can happen when we're not in an election period. I did not want to actually limit the application of this rule with respect to election cycles.

Information & Ethics committee  With respect to organizations and corporations, contracts are not in my bailiwick right now. If it is the wish of this committee and Parliament that it be, then the Lobbying Act needs to be reviewed. Because contracts are not subject to the Lobbying Act, individuals who do have communications about contracts are just not subject to my code.

Information & Ethics committee  That's why I'm not discussing.... The new rule will not have the concept of a full election cycle. It's gone. It was just in a guidance document. It was a “should” and it was really only if you had a very important role and significant interactions with the person you helped get elected.

Information & Ethics committee  That is a good question. I expected someone to ask that. I am thinking about it. I have not yet made a decision, but I will give you an answer next week. I am very much in favour of transparency, but I also know the great importance of confidentiality. I would not want to create a precedent.

Information & Ethics committee  This rule currently exists. We just reframed it or repackaged it a little bit. I have to say that it is probably one of the rules that gave us the greatest challenge in framing it in the right way. I certainly can't be the keeper of the truth or of the facts, but in a world with a lot of misleading information out there, I wanted to make sure that when lobbyists do lobby you, they have done due diligence in taking reasonable steps to ensure that the information that they give you is not misleading.