The reason we're taking a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, is because it's somewhat unclear to us exactly how the first part of this would necessarily be captured by the amendment as proposed, given obviously that we didn't draft the language. So we're not necessarily in the same headspace as this amendment.
Currently it is the commissioner who has the obligation, if you will, to look after the registry. It is up to the commissioner to verify the accuracy of the registry and to investigate and ensure that those people who are engaging in lobbying activities are properly registered. If they are not, it is up to the commissioner to investigate and perhaps refer matters to the proper place for enforcement.
I guess the difficulty with the amendment is trying to see how it's putting an onus on a senior public office holder to verify that the person with whom he or she is communicating is actually a lobbyist. I don't really see that in the language there. I certainly see a requirement for the senior public office holder to name the individual with whom he or she is meeting, to name the date of the communication or meeting, and to include any particulars with respect to the subject matter. Then it's left open for the commissioner to prescribe what other information would be required.