Oh, very much so.
But I would say that this rumour—that people are not becoming staff of ministers because of the five-year ban—is a rumour. There's never been a case that anyone has ever come forward and said he or she didn't join the government because of the rule. There's no evidence that it is discouraging anyone. In fact, when it was a minority government situation, I think what discouraged people was that they didn't know when there was going to be an election and they didn't know whether they'd still have a job in two years. Would you really move to Ottawa, move your family, become a senior staffer, when you have a situation that is so unsure, because it could last one or one and a half years? That is far more likely to be a reason why people may not have joined Conservative cabinet ministers' offices as staff after these measures came in.
I don't think there's any evidence that five years is too long, but I think it is too long for MPs, and it shouldn't be the same standard. A sliding scale with the administrative monetary penalties would be a good combination.
Just to mention, when you were talking about disclosure of funding, Democracy Watch's and the coalition's recommendation is also that there should be disclosure of how much you spend on a campaign.
When you're asking about updates, there's a requirement for organizations to update any changes in their registration every six months already. That could be moved to quarterly, as in the U.S., but you would at least know every six months whether new money had come in, if you put in this requirement to disclose funding sources.