To be honest, because that case is currently.... I normally conduct investigations and reviews in private, but I have commenced.... When I'm speaking in front of this committee, if I'm talking about a matter that's in the public interest...I am looking into this particular issue. So I am looking at the different issues in this particular file.
In general, in response to your question, the act has quite clearly right now outlined that if you are communicating with a public office holder for payment on a registerable activity--so communicating to change or develop a policy or program to obtain a financial benefit. In the case of consultant lobbyists, there is also arranging a meeting and the awarding of a contract.
For in-house lobbyists the other thing that triggers is the significant amount of duties test, which is currently interpreted as 20%.
One of the things I have advocated or recommended during the legislative review, as I see it, as an improvement to the act, is to actually get rid of the significant amount of duties test requirement from the legislation. This will capture a lot more activities and organizations and corporations that are not currently having to register.
That said, as I recommended, there are probably exemptions to that that Parliament may want to consider. I think there was a reason for putting in the significant amount of duties test so that it wouldn't be an undue burden, because one of the principles of the act is that the system for registration should not impede free and open access to government.