I have a problem with how you could drive a truck, really, through the proposed amendment. I understand what the proposed section means. A minister of the crown, if you look at what's in clause 67.... These are defined positions under subclause 67(2): “a minister of the Crown”; an “individual who, in a department as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act...”. These are identified people—even, in the proposed Lobbyists Registration Act item 2(1)(b)(i) of subclause 67(2), a person who “occupies the senior executive position”.... These are people who have titles—“associate deputy minister...”.
When we get down to the amendment's proposed subsection 88.1(5) I think it puts a terrible burden on the Prime Minister: any person “identified by the Prime Minister as having had the task of providing support and advice to him”—that could be his mother, his wife, and so on—“during the...period leading up to the swearing in...”. Would that mean two days before, three days before?
It shows, when we peel the layers away, that there was good intention here, and I understand what Mr. Lukiwski said. But when you peel it away, this was done with such haste that somebody integral to the whole vision for the government didn't know that if she agreed to the task, she'd be out of a possible job afterwards. She clearly makes that precision. It shows, I think, in embryo that this has been a hastily devised act in many ways.
But going back to the legislation, is there a way of tightening it up? Do transition teams actually get named? It's not my understanding that they get formally named by prime ministers in any Royal Gazette way.
The Royal Gazette? There's a....
Well, I'll ask the experts—or Mr. Poilievre; they're interchangeable, I guess. What method could you propose for identifying who gives the Prime Minister support and advice? Don't you think that's a little loose?