Information & Ethics committee  I would add that there's another officer of Parliament you can consult, and that would be the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer has dealt with this issue very specifically in the value that you, Blaine Calkins, as a member of the committee, would receive by attending that event—the cost of the chicken, the cost of the lettuce, the cost of the plates—and then everything else would be deemed a political contribution.

Information & Ethics committee  Let me complement what Jim is saying. First of all, if he spends two phone calls, he gets what he needs done. More importantly the 20% rule, such as it is, isn't a rule; it's a guideline, because it comes from an officer of Parliament and is not embedded in statute. The statute actually says a “significant portion of their duties”.

Information & Ethics committee  I would add one sentence—and this is me speaking not on behalf of GRIC, but on behalf of myself more than anything else. There is an equally important competing obligation that an individual who is accused of something has the right to face their accuser. This is not something that we have seen done in a way that is of satisfaction to many of our members, because they don't know where the accusation is coming from.

Information & Ethics committee  Oh. I'm glad I could help.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  I am notoriously pro-privacy, so I'll say yes. But I say that on my own behalf. This is not something we surveyed our members about. Again, we're integrating yet another act into this. Statutes such as the criminal law obviously incorporate by reference definitions found in other acts.

Information & Ethics committee  The first thing I would tell you is that the senior in your riding who wants the sidewalk fixed, unless he or she is being paid by all the other seniors, is not a lobbyist. This is a constituent. This is something that we have seen from other affiants or people who are testifying in front of this committee, talking about what they've described as “volunteer lobbying”.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes. The fine and/or jail time can be very significant.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, for violating it.

Information & Ethics committee  Again, my view would be as long as they're the same, that's the way to go, just so that they are clear and predictable and there isn't an opportunity to leverage one act against the other to justify behaviour.

Information & Ethics committee  If I could add just one sentence, I would define two things. I would define the monetary value that is the threshold and then I would define gifts. Make it a closed definition, not one that's open to interpretation.

Information & Ethics committee  Well, I think the reason it's misunderstood is that there hasn't been a lot of definition applied to it. I've written in the past that different people have taken different interpretations of it because it is incumbent on them to self-report. I mean, 19% of your time means everything you did after breakfast on Monday, and that's it, okay?

Information & Ethics committee  The more specificity you can provide to the subsequent officers of Parliament and judges in interpreting the act, the better.

Information & Ethics committee  The answer is yes. The first thing is to start with one act. You pick one, whether it's the Lobbying Act or the Conflict of Interest Act, and then you go from there. Then you take the existing menus of the various post-employment guidelines and, as parliamentarians, you ultimately decide what will apply to yourselves and what should apply to everyone else who works in the federal public service.

Information & Ethics committee  If I could just add one quick thing to that, not all gifts have a pecuniary value that can easily be assigned to them. So the opportunity to meet your childhood hero, which may not cost you a nickel, may be of more value to you than it might be to anyone else at this committee, for example.