The third paragraph reads as follows:
Briefly, and for the record, I served the transition committee as a volunteer. I took a two and one half week unpaid leave of absence from my job at Carleton University to serve on the committee. At no time before, during or after my service was I informed that my two and one half weeks of volunteerism would be deemed the equivalent of a life-long career in the public service, let alone resulting in me being retroactively covered by the Accountability Act's provisions prohibiting public office holders from engaging in lobbying activities for 5 years thereafter.
And she continues in the fourth paragraph:
Had that fact been made know to me at the time, I would have respectfully declined the invitation to volunteer. The fact that the government has introduced this amendment after the Bill was initially tabled simply underscores the point that none of the transition committee members had been forewarned that the consequences of their volunteerism could have such a far-reaching and negative impact on their careers.
You are saying that the G-25 amendment will have no retroactive effect, that it is simply retrospective. However, Ms. Elizabeth Roscoe, who works at Carleton University, is of the belief that this retrospective application has a retroactive effect on her. She states that at the time, if she had been able to predict this effect, she would never have accepted to work as a volunteer. These past decisions could have a negative impact on her career. But at the time, this was not at all the case. In summary, we could retrace this person's past and tell her that because of what she chose to do at one point in time, she will be prohibited in the future from undertaking this type of activity.
I would therefore like you to explain to me in what way this retrospective legal impact has no retroactive effect on Ms. Roscoe. After the January 23, 2006 general election, she was free to launch her career. She had worked for two and one half weeks, and that possibility still existed. But that will no longer be the case if this amendment, as well as amendment G-32, are passed.
Imagine Ms. Roscoe's reaction if I send her the transcript of the meeting telling her: “But no, Ms. Roscoe, there is no retroactive effect, this is simply retrospective.“