Information & Ethics committee  If I may, in other words, if say the Kings County potato growers association were an entirely voluntary association and people weren't paid in that organization, it would not be required to register. There's no payment involved. On the other hand, if the Prince Edward Island potato growers association—I'm making this up—had a large organization and a group of people, executive and employees, who were paid to operate within that organization, and they lobbied federal public office holders, they would secondarily have to meet the 20% “significant amount of duties” test.

Information & Ethics committee  The way the act is written now, under the section 7 requirements to register, if an organization or a corporation that actually pays people is doing lobbying activity, but to a very minimal amount, they're not required to register. I think that's exactly what Parliament intended by putting the significant amount of duties test in there.

Information & Ethics committee  They're exempted. Employees of other levels of government in Canada are exempted from the Lobbying Act.

Information & Ethics committee  It was one of the provinces Ms. Shepherd did refer to earlier; it was British Columbia. I know you're a member of Parliament from British Columbia, and you might recognize the name Mr. Ken Dobell. He's the person in question who was lobbying on behalf of the City of Vancouver with the Province of British Columbia and a couple of different federal departments.

Information & Ethics committee  May I add something to that last question, Mr. Chair?

Information & Ethics committee  Just to be clear, there's no licensing requirement for lobbyists. Anyone may register to be a lobbyist, and is required to register if they're engaged in those activities. Once they do that, they're required to adhere to the code. But there's no licensing body; there's no body that looks over that.

Information & Ethics committee  The input is by the lobbyists themselves.

Information & Ethics committee  That's it, in a nutshell. A legal issue would arise because of the change in the limitation period, and the prosecutors weren't convinced that was necessarily the best way to go to have that. That would be the first issue addressed.

Information & Ethics committee  If I can say a few words, in that case it was quite a unique case because it involved an individual who was under investigation for breach of both the federal Lobbyists Registration Act and the provincial Lobbyists Registration Act, so there were two prosecutors involved and two very similar pieces of legislation.

Information & Ethics committee  I can help the commissioner answer, if you like. One difference is that offences under the Lobbying Act are truly offences that entail criminal sanctions. So if the commissioner does an administrative review and finds reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed by the individual in question, she has to refer the matter to the RCMP.

Information & Ethics committee  I don't know about the exact organizational structure of ACOA, but in that office in Charlottetown, I'm not sure there's an assistant deputy minister in charge.

Information & Ethics committee  In all likelihood, perhaps that isn't an ADM. So that person would be a designated public office holder with the attendant responsibility to file a monthly communication report—but that person alone; you're correct. Other people in an office like that, or in any government office, would not be designated public office holders.

Information & Ethics committee  People are very imaginative. I think the one thing the commissioner mentioned was that any staff in a minister's office or any member of Parliament's office is a public office holder under the Lobbying Act. A communication with them would be a registerable activity. It's only the exempt staff, who are appointed under subsection 128(1) of the PSEA, who, as the act states, are designated public office holders.

Information & Ethics committee  It would follow a determination by the commissioner that she has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.

Information & Ethics committee  The act doesn't say. The requirements are set out in the act. It's an interpretative guide designed to be of assistance to somebody who looks on the website, or to guide them in how they apply the act. It's Parliament that speaks in the act and tells us....