It is an issue that needs discussion. For clarity, my point had more to do with non-corporate boards. I think corporations are in a position to decide what structure they use for their government relations, and clearly, corporate board members are paid above expenses. What I was talking about is associations, non-profits. If they pay one cent above documented expenses and they're expecting those board members to engage in advocacy, you get in a situation where now you have to go to this person and say “Not only did we get you to volunteer to do this, and we're paying you expenses that in all likelihood aren't really covering your expenses, but now you have to file as a consultant lobbyist, and there may be some tax implications to that, and if you do this wrong, you could end up in jail”.
I'm not sure that's helpful when at the same time we're trying to increase not only the definition but the performance of what these boards are supposed to be doing. For the longest time, especially in public sector boards, these were seen as places to stick people as favours, and what we are finding is that we now expect these boards to do a job, and if you want people to do a job, you should treat them accordingly. I see a danger that this is bumping into that and we may end up hurting these organizations' chances to get quality people.
To complicate things, you have parliamentarians who sit on corporate boards, so this gets rather incestuous. If policy is discussed at a corporate board meeting and a sitting parliamentarian is a board member, how do you reconcile that? How do you go public? With a publicly traded company, how do you now file a communication report? You don't. So you're not getting at that.
You need to look at it.