I'm really happy. That's a very good question about non-profit organizations.
Yes, we have seen that there's a good side, as in everything. People lobby for the right reasons. In other cases, we can sometimes see the problems coming.
Let us talk about a situation that happened here. The Prime Minister met with Brookfield's chief operating officer in his office, without triggering the ethical screen. However, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a non-profit organization. It's as if it were for another reason.
How can laws ensure that people don't circumvent the rules by taking cover under the umbrella of another rule that says they don't have to declare certain things? How can we be truly sure that the systems in place are being used properly?
We need to help non-profit organizations; we agree on that. However, this rule shouldn't ultimately become a way to circumvent the Lobbying Act.
What do you think?