Mr. Chair, perhaps I could speak to the intent of the clause as it's currently drafted.
We had in mind working off the existing registration system that, as my colleagues have pointed out, relates to lobbyist registration and to ensuring that the registry is verified. The onus will be on the commissioner to ensure that the registry is valid. We thought it practical for him to be able to verify it with senior public office holders. If the senior public office holder is to be asked by the commissioner to validate information, it follows that such a person would need to keep some records of their own as to communication they've had with lobbyists.
However, the solution we've found does not create in effect two registries, one by the senior public office holders and one by the lobbyists. So we thought this would be a somewhat elegant way of achieving the objective of having a valid registry, one that's validated by senior public office holders, albeit on a selective basis, through the commissioner.
To the point that the commissioner could be unable to validate information, for example where a lobbyist did not register, it would be best to ask the lobbyist registrar if that is the case. Our understanding is that he can manipulate the information he has on the registry so he can sort it by senior public office holder and he can give a report to any senior public office holder and ask, “Do you agree that these are the lobbying contacts that you've had over the period?” So I think there would be an effective means, given how he can use this registry, to validate it.