We did note, Mr. Chair, the connection to the Australian model. We would just say that the difference in the Australian model is that “foreign government related entity” and “foreign government related individual” are defined in the Australian model, but they are not currently in the definition in the proposed act.
The definition of “foreign principal” is specific to “foreign state,” “foreign power”, “foreign entity” and “foreign economic entity”. This would provide a lot of discretion to the commissioner to apply what they consider to be “related to” in terms of the extent of that relationship in the application.
I think too that the intent of the powers being afforded to the commissioner in the proposed act would also allow for the issuance of notices already without specifying the related provision.