An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act

How it changed on the way

76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,746 words introduced, 4,397 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The passed bill kept the core removals of 'in an attempt to influence' and the exception for requested communications but added new disclosure rules. It also inserted the assent date and expanded reporting on former office holders, organization membership, and funding.

• Added new item on former public office holders in lobbyist returns.

  After: “(h.1) if the individual is a former public officer holder, a description of the offices held;”

• Expanded description of organization membership in employer returns.

  Before: “(d) if the employer is an organization, a desc”

  After: “(d) if the employer is an organization, a description of the organization's member- ship and any other information to identify its membership that is prescribed;”

• Added funding disclosure for employers in returns.

  After: “(e) if the employer is funded in whole or”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill mixes tight numerical deadlines and defined roles with repeated subjective tests such as 'believes on reasonable grounds' and 'significant part of the duties'. These open-ended phrases create room for argument over coverage and enforcement.

Open to argument

• “those duties constitute a significant part of the duties of one employee”

  Uses an undefined relative standard instead of a measurable threshold.

Clear-cut

• “not later than ten days after entering into an undertaking”

  Fixed calendar deadline removes discretion on timing.

• “not later than thirty days after the expiry of every six-month period”

  Clear recurring interval stated in days and months.

Discretion. The Ethics Counsellor decides what documents are necessary, when to advise peace officers, and when to suspend investigations, while the form and manner of returns are left to regulations.

Challenging the law itself. The phrase 'significant part of the duties' and repeated 'reasonable grounds' tests could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether duties met the 'significant part' threshold or whether the Counsellor's belief was objectively reasonable on the same facts.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.