I'll take a crack at the first question you asked, which is how do we get one definition out of three seemingly different definitions that appear in two acts that have at their core purpose different objectives. The Lobbying Act is about governing the conduct of lobbyists. The Conflict of Interest Act is about making sure that elected officials who are just ordinary public servants aren't putting themselves in a position where they may look like they are compromised. I think there's good reason for there to be confusion, for the reasons you just stated.
In this case, the Lobbying Act is actually a creature of criminal law, whereas the Conflict of Interest Act is one about public service. I don't think you want to have confusion in a spot where an individual could be subject to a jail term or to a very significant fine. We are on the record many times, and one more time here today, that the post-employment rules should be consolidated under one officer of Parliament. We recommended to you which officer of Parliament that should be, as long as there's one definition. We completely agree with you.
We think it's appropriate that the officer of Parliament interpret and administer the post-employment rules, as long as it's one person making the interpretation. The way that laws and definitions change is through various public officer holders interpreting those statutes through their decisions and interpretations. If there's only one body offering those interpretations, you won't see that definitional creep.
Jim, did you want to talk about undue influence?