The reason this was not included in the original bill is that the bill calls on the lobbyist to keep the records, and the public office holder is responsible for confirming whether those records are accurate and complete. We think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to take, since the lobbyist approaches the public office holder to lobby; given it is their job to lobby and given it is their interests they're advancing, it should be their responsibility to record their meetings. We add the additional responsibility for the public office holder to take note of whether or not the lobbyist has accurately and completely registered the times and dates of meetings they may have held together.
Once again, lobbyists initiate advocacy on public office holders--ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and others. It's their interests that are being discussed in these meetings, and therefore we believe it is their responsibility to keep records of those meetings, not be the responsibility of the persons being lobbied; their responsibility becomes verification.
I would argue that the worthy objectives of this amendment are already covered in the original act because the public office holder must verify accuracy and completeness. At the same time, the existing act allows for the practical reality that it's the lobbyists who are pushing an agenda; it's therefore they who should be responsible for keeping records of meetings, dates, and times.
I'd ask for any insight from our expert panel.