I want to start with a quick comment. I get the sense that nowhere in Canadian history has Brixton's Pub been mentioned more than here, in this parliamentary committee.
I think the work you do is entirely legitimate, useful and practical, and that it raises the level of debate and discussion. Clearly, that is not in question. But I do want to say that it is not the presence of lobbyists that bothers me, but rather the fact that some people on Parliament Hill cannot afford lobbyists. That is unfortunate. You don't have to respond to that; I just wanted to put it out there.
The 20% rule seems to be problematic. On the one hand, I appreciate having a limit. But on the other, you can tinker with percentage calculations when you want to. If you say that lobbying represents 15% of your activities, you do not have to report it.
However, 15% can have a major impact. For instance, if you call up Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, and you make one lobbying call a year, the message will probably be heard loud and clear.
If we did away with the 20% threshold for former DPOHs, as you suggest, would a former minister or prime minister who made one or two phone calls a year to a current minister have to report it?