Mr. Chair, the question really raises a question of instrument choice. There is a kind of choice here. You could do proactive disclosure of this information through policy. You could do it through simple guidance, which is what's been done to date. Certainly the government's view is that this guidance has worked and that departments are, by and large, complying with this. Policy tends to be the more natural choice the government uses when we're talking about detailed things that are really internal administration of the government. Regulations would be another choice.
Regulations tend to create a more onerous, stricter interpretation in the sense that they're a more formal legal instrument, so they require time and effort to craft properly and so forth.
It's certainly true that if the amendment were passed and Bill C-2 came into law with that amendment, there wouldn't be a requirement the day it comes into force to actually do this. It would take the step of issuing regulations for a requirement to do this.
It goes back to, as I say, really a question of instrument choice. The government is working on a policy instrument to do the very thing that is contemplated by the regulatory proposal that's been put forward in the motion.