Information & Ethics committee  Tough.

Information & Ethics committee  Pay attention.

Information & Ethics committee  The one other thing, if I could add, is that it has expanded people's capabilities around communication, and we talked a little bit about social media. So many individuals who might have been practitioners or thought they were going to be involved in lobbying have broadened their skill set to other communications activities.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you for the question and for the opportunity. Just as a point of clarity, I was one of the first affected by the five-year lobbying ban. I served two weeks as a volunteer for the Prime Minister's transition team. I was not an employee of the Prime Minister's Office. That needs to be clarified.

Information & Ethics committee  My only comment is that the amendment that included the broader category really was intended to provide clarity for all members of Parliament, because they can influence an outcome of a decision. If you were going to rethink that, we'd certainly be able to help you with some of the thinking, but as far as we are aware, that's not under consideration at this point.

Information & Ethics committee  I think you may be referring to a private member's bill that's been put forward. We haven't looked at the specifics of that issue. Transparency is the cornerstone behind the Federal Accountability Act, so we would see that it needs to be carried forward as well to other acts.

Information & Ethics committee  Again, we're guided by the fact that if individuals, organizations, or corporations are not using a lobbying technique more than 20% of the time, then you would also think, as you say, that the issue they're dealing with isn't going to be that material to them. The committee chose, or Parliament chose, to use 20% during the review of the FAA some years ago.

Information & Ethics committee  Just to situate what kind of affirmation we're looking for, we would like to see at least the level of clarity afforded to the public service through the Public Service Employment Act.

Information & Ethics committee  Our view, and I think we spoke to this at the outset, is that there needs to be a clear process set out in terms of both investigative powers and an appeal process, which most other AMPs actually have. Anyone being investigated will know that they're going to have a judicious process that will be followed.

Information & Ethics committee  It is for the exact reason raised earlier. There may be individuals from your constituency, from corporations, from small businesses, and from not-for-profit organizations that undertake lobbying for less than 10% of their time. For that reason, they need to have some guidance. That's what the 20% is about.

Information & Ethics committee  We defer to the committee for those classifications. You're best able to determine whether it's applicable to all levels within either a minister's office or a member of Parliament's office.

Information & Ethics committee  Thanks.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, we've heard that this is one of the additional powers she's seeking. We defer to the parliamentarians at the table to understand whether that expansion of investigative powers is required. What we've asked for, if you deem that both the investigative powers and the AMP are going to be added to the office, is that judicious process be applied, that individuals—and I think you've heard other witnesses ask for the opportunity to be informed that they are being investigated—have due process and the opportunity to seek counsel, if that investigation is undertaken.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you for the question. As you can see in our brief, with regard to the 20%, we think the same rules should apply to all consultant, corporate, or organizational lobbyists. I think earlier this week the commissioner, the Government Relations Institute, the Public Affairs Association, and even the Canadian Bar Association made reference to this not being consistently applied.

Information & Ethics committee  Certainly that is part of the definition, that you have to be paid to be considered a lobbyist. I should be clear. We are not suggesting changing the significant time. We're only suggesting that the carve-out be deleted for designated public office holders. Many of your constituents will not be undertaking lobbying for any more than perhaps 10% of their time.