I have asked a number of the witnesses about their view on the current definition of designated public office holder. I think most witnesses, when I've asked this, have said they're relatively comfortable with who's covered under that now.
But I'd like your view. Is it too broad? Do we need different categories? That would also bring in this five-year rule issue, where if somebody were the Minister of Finance for five or six years in Canada and then was no longer a public office holder and wanted to lobby or whatever, it's probably a lot different from Brad Butt, backbench MP, who no longer is a member of Parliament and now wants to continue to earn a living in some way, shape, or form.
Can you comment very quickly on the current definition? Are you still satisfied that it's right? Should there be some flexibility in that five-year rule?