You see the person responsible for reporting, which I would still keep because I think there should be a notice on the reporting officer. But in terms of transparency, it would be listing all of those. That's what the act was trying to get at.
I say this to public office holders as well. Lobbying is legitimate. As decision-makers, you want access to the best advice out there. It just needs to be transparent. Having the name go into a monthly communication report shows you're doing your job. But as some of them say, with the current rules they may be meeting all sides of an issue, but you don't see it because those who are not hitting the significant amount of duties test do not file what we call the initial registration, which has all of the comprehensive detail in it. Therefore, since they do not file that, they do not file a monthly report. That's where I'm saying the act could be strengthened.
At the same time, as I mentioned in my paper, there need to be some exemptions to that. I don't think you want to put the chill in that citizens don't want to see their members of Parliament or the small organizations that might meet with you once a year. This is where it really does need some thought. There are a lot of organizations that are doing enough lobbying that you'd want to capture them.