It's acceptable under the act and the code, but I think it's fair to say, in this instance, that it presents a bit of a problem in terms of public confidence related to the ability to track procurement contracts that are material in nature. We're talking about big contracts here.
Is it your recommendation that this committee recommend that all disclosures of numbered companies include the operating and trade names in order to provide greater transparency and accountability to the public and office? Quite frankly, as was identified, you can only investigate what is submitted to you. If you're submitted a numbered company and you're looking for contradictions or conflicts within the act but don't know what the operating name is, would that not provide a significant investigative gap in terms of your ability to confirm or investigate any potential conflicts?