I think the beefed up version is timely (likely overdue), mostly because there's already a fairly common public perception (rightly or wrongly) that doctors are "in the pockets" of the pharmaceutical industry, that will take robust action to erase - and it's important to erase, in order to maintain trust in the profession. Over my 25 years of practice, the more flagrant forms of bribery are seen less often, but I'm afraid that's because it's now more "scientific" rather than because either industry or docs have given up on the influence game. I'd suggest a few minor edits. The third paragraph of the preamble reads "Conflicts of interest related to financial aspects can affect a regulated member’s objectivity..." but there are other non-financial COIs (e.g. reputational, academic career benefits, etc) that can equally affect members, with potential detriment to patients. Since the glossary defines COIs very well, I'd suggest cleaning that up slightly to "Conflicts of interests can affect a regulated member's objectivity..." Similarly, in paragraph 11, I'd suggest instead "...must disclose to participants any relationship with industry..." Lastly, it's unclear how anyone would typically know what amounts a doc might be reimbursed financially for things like organizing/presenting CPD activities (these amounts certainly aren't disclosed publicly by the commercial entities!) and therefore it's impossible to know if those reimbursements "could reasonably be perceived as having undue influence". If the CPSA's mandate is to prevent docs being unduly affected by these payments, why not make this Standard really effective, and require that docs accepting any financial compensation from industry report the individual amounts on their annual RIF? Unless there's some benefit to secrecy here (to patients, individual docs, the profession, or the public), it's not an unreasonable ask. And if there IS some benefit to secrecy, that's a problem that needs tackling head-on.