OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. Report of an Investigation under the Lobbyists Act. Re: Mr. Joseph Lougheed

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER PROVINCE OF ALBERTA Report of an Investigation under the Lobbyists Act Re: Mr. Joseph Lougheed May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013 Hon. Gene Zwozdesky Speaker Office of the Speaker Legislative Branch 325 Legislature Building 10800-97 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6 Honourable Speaker: Re: Investigation Report pursuant to section 17 of the Lobbyists Act I am pleased to submit an Investigation Report prepared by the Lobbyists Act Registrar of an investigation into allegations made against Mr. Joe Lougheed, an alleged consultant lobbyist. This Report is provided to you pursuant to sub-section 17(1.1) of the Lobbyists Act, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly pursuant to sub-section 17(2) of the Lobbyists Act. Yours very truly, Neil Wilkinson Ethics Commissioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS ALLEGATIONS... 1 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION... 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS... 2 PERSONS INTERVIEWED/EVIDENCE OBTAINED... 4 FINDINGS... 7 CONCLUSIONS... 7 APPENDIX A...8

ALLEGATIONS [1.] By a letter dated November 08, 2012, and received at the Office of the Ethics Commissioner November 09, 2012, Mr. Shayne Saskiw, MLA of Lac La Biche St. Paul Two Hills, submitted a Request for investigation into lobbying activities. Among other things, that letter said: I am writing to request that you undertake an immediate investigation into the lobbying activities performed by Mr. Joseph Lougheed for the Alberta College of Art and Design (hereinafter referred to as the College ) since the Lobbyists Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was proclaimed September 28, 2009. It appears that Mr. Lougheed is a consultant lobbyist under the Act as invoices indicate payment was taken to lobby via government relations on behalf of a client. It further appears that meetings were arranged between a public officer and other individuals in this regard..... As you know, under the Act, the consultant lobbyist had a duty to file a return in the prescribed form not later than 30 days after the Act came into force. Upon review, Mr. Joe Lougheed is not listed as a lobbyist on the Lobbyists Registry. This issue became public in a CBC report. It appears, on the face of that report, that these activities constituted a serious breach of the Act. As such, it is requested that your office do a thorough investigation, make the results of that investigation public, and, should a breach be found to have occurred, levy the stiffest penalties available to your office to maintain the integrity of the Act and the Lobbyist Registry. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION [2.] The Lobbyists Act, S.A. 2007, Chapter L-20.5, [the Act ] received Royal Assent on December 7, 2007, was amended in the Spring Session of 2009, and was proclaimed on September 28, 2009. The legislative purpose of the Act is found in the Preamble which states: Preamble WHEREAS free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest; and WHEREAS lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; and WHEREAS it is desirable that the public and public office holders be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities; and WHEREAS a system for the registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government; and WHEREAS it is desirable that the public and public office holders be able to know who is contracting with the Government of Alberta and Provincial entities Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 1

[3.] The Act is comprehensive and complex; the majority of issues that can arise under the Act are factual in nature and include: whether the Act applies; if it does apply, how it applies; if it doesn t apply, why it doesn t apply; whether there s an apparent breach of the Act; if there is a breach, whether such was inadvertent or deliberate; and whether the breach is deserving of sanction either by imposition of an administrative penalty or prosecution. [4.] All these (and more) are questions that can only be answered by having all the pertinent facts. [5.] The main sections of the Act that are germane to this matter are the Preamble, sections 1(1)(b), 1(1)(d)(ii), 1(1)(f),1(3), 4(3), 15, 17, 18, 19 and section 7 of the General Regulation to the Act. These sections are reproduced in Appendix A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS [6.] In this instance, the allegation made in Mr. Saskiw s request for investigation is that Mr. Joe Lougheed acted as a consultant lobbyist within the meaning of the Act, and did not register as such, as required by the Act. [7.] The first step then, is to confirm whether Mr. Joe Lougheed is, or has been registered as a consultant lobbyist engaged by the Alberta College of Art and Design [ACAD] at a time after proclamation of the Act on September 28, 2009. [8.] There is no record in the Alberta Lobbyists Act Registry that Mr. Lougheed has ever registered as a consultant lobbyist acting on behalf of any client, or even that Mr. Lougheed has ever applied to register as a consultant lobbyist. [9.] The evidence provided in support of the CBC report referenced by Mr. Saskiw in the request for investigation included copies of invoices from Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP [FMC] to the ACAD for government relations services provided by Mr. Joe Lougheed of that firm to the ACAD, as well as (in the case of the CBC report) a copy of a Purchase Requisition issued by the ACAD to FMC for the provision of Legal services re: Community and Gov t Relations. [10.] It should be noted that the primary focus of the CBC report was on the amount of money paid to FMC by ACAD for the services provided by Mr. Lougheed, and especially within the context of the fact that the ACAD is a prescribed provincial entity within the definition of the Act and General Regulation to the Act. There is nothing whatsoever in Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 2

the Act or General Regulation that pertains to the terms of contracts between consultants and their clients, and that issue is therefore of no significance in the consideration of whether there ought to be an investigation and, if so, what ought to be investigated. [11.] I find that the information provided in support of the allegation is, on the face, sufficient to warrant further inquiry into what community and government relations services were actually provided by Mr. Joe Lougheed to the ACAD during the term of the engagement, and then whether any of these services fall within the definition of lobbying as specified in section 1(1)(f) of the Act. Clearly, if none of the activities fall within that definition, then Mr. Lougheed was not a consultant lobbyist under the Act, and registration was not required by the Act. [12.] Conversely, if any of the services provided by Mr. Lougheed fall within the definition of lobbying contained in the Act, then registration would have been required, and a failure to register may warrant imposition of an administrative penalty, as provided for in section 18 of the Act. [13.] Insofar as the imposition of administrative penalties is concerned, Mr. Saskiw indicated in his request for investigation that in his view a found breach would warrant imposition of the maximum penalty available under the Act. It is worth commenting at this point that since proclamation of the Lobbyists Act, virtually every request for an investigation that this office has received has characterised the alleged breach, regardless of what that alleged breach may be, to be of the utmost significance to the integrity of the Act, and deserving of the imposition of the maximum penalty allowable under the Act in the event the allegation is found to be made out. It appears that, at least to some, the maximum administrative penalty of $25,000 that is specified in section 18(2) of the Lobbyist Act is not a maximum it is the only penalty that should be imposed. And presumably, if that is correct, and there is a finding of a breach, the provisions of section 7 of the General Regulation to the Act, which specifies the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate administrative penalty to be imposed in each instance of a breach being found, ought to be disregarded. That is akin to saying that any breach of the Criminal Code ought to be sanctioned by imposition of the maximum penalty available under that Code life in prison. [14.] The principle of proportionality in sentencing is fundamental to our concept of justice. There is nothing in law that supports deviating from that principle, and I am not prepared to do that on the basis of a request/observation of a complainant. [15.] As indicated in the quotation from the request for investigation made by Mr. Saskiw, his concern is with respect to Mr. Loughed s activities in general. The referenced CBC report on the other hand, includes the names of individuals, some of whom clearly were public office holders within the meaning of the Act, with whom it is alleged Mr. Lougheed had contact during the term of his engagement with the ACAD. [16.] As a consequence of this naming of names, I determined that my investigation would include interviews with those named persons that I was able to contact. Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 3

PERSONS INTERVIEWED/EVIDENCE OBTAINED [17.] As a preliminary observation, I want to make it clear that every party I contacted and every request I made was met with full cooperation. [18.] I requested, and was provided documentary evidence as follows: From the ACAD, a complete, unedited copy of its file on the engagement of Mr. Lougheed; and From FMC, Mr. Lougheed s complete, unedited file of his engagement by the ACAD. It should be pointed out that the ACAD file that was provided included print-outs of all internal email communications that included the name, Joe Lougheed, or pertained to the activities in which Mr. Lougheed was engaged by the ACAD. Mr. Joe Lougheed also provided me a written submission concerning his engagement by the ACAD and in particular his response to the allegations made in the CBC report and the request for investigation. [19.] The following persons were interviewed by telephone: a) From the ACAD Dr. Daniel Doz, President of ACAD; Ms. Julie Snyder, Executive Assistant to Dr. Doz; Mr. Lance Carlson, Past-President of ACAD; and Mr. James Peacock, Q.C., Chairman of the Board of the ACAD b) From FMC Mr. Joe Lougheed c) Named public office holders Mr. Len Webber, MLA for Calgary Foothills and former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Lindsey Blackett, former Minister of Culture Mr. Ken Faulkner, former Executive Director of Premier Stelmach s Southern Alberta Office Mr. Ron Glen, former Chief of Staff to Premier Stelmach Mr. Bill Smith, former President of the PC Association of Alberta Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 4

It is worth noting that Mr. Bill Smith was not a public office holder within the definition of the Act, but nonetheless was fully cooperative and provided information that proved useful in this investigation. [20.] The written and oral evidence was consistent and uncontradicted, and establishes that: In 2008, shortly after Ken Faulkner was appointed Executive Director of the Southern Alberta Office of the Premier, he set up a Calgary Advisory Committee to serve as a mechanism to gain insight into the policy issues that were of particular concern to the Calgary and Southern Alberta business and non-profit sectors and convey that information to the Premier, the Honourable Ed Stelmach. Among others, included as members of that Advisory Committee were Bill Smith, President of the PC Association of Alberta, Lance Carlson, President of the ACAD, and Joe Lougheed. Ron Glen, Chief of Staff to the Premier, Lindsey Blackett, Minister of Culture, and various other Ministers also attended the meetings of the Advisory Committee on occasion. In 2009, Lance Carlson decided that the ACAD required a rebranding to broaden its scope and raise its profile, and because of his having worked with Joe Lougheed on the Premier s Advisory Committee, decided to engage Mr. Lougheed to serve as his eyes and ears to the Calgary and Alberta business and cultural communities, as well as to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Lougheed were both adamant that Mr. Lougheed was not engaged to do any lobbying, as defined in the Act, on behalf of the ACAD, and that he did not do any such lobbying. It is also worth noting that all of the public office holders interviewed, and Mr. Smith, who was not a public office holder, confirmed that Mr. Lougheed never communicated with them in any manner concerning the ACAD. Further, Dr. Daniel Doz, Mr. Carlson s successor at the ACAD, and Mr. James Peacock, Q.C., Chairman of the Board of the ACAD, both confirmed that their understanding of the engagement agreement with Mr. Lougheed did not include him engaging in any lobbying activities on behalf of the ACAD at all times, all parties were of the view that any and all lobbying that might be required by the ACAD was to be effected by the President, the Chairman of the Board, and other Governors on the Board of Governors. The Invoices submitted to the ACAD by Mr. Lougheed, wherein there are references to discussions and public office holders are named, were in fact discussions between Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Carlson concerning approaches that Mr. Carlson might take to the named office holders with respect to discussing certain topics with them. Those referencing meetings with public office holders were in fact reporting to Mr. Carlson (and subsequently to Dr. Doz) on meetings that Mr. Lougheed attended where the indicated public office holders were present, thus demonstrating that Mr. Lougheed was in fact serving the purpose of acting as the eyes and ears of the President of the ACAD, and discussions Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 5

were discussions with the President of the ACAD concerning what had been seen and heard at those meetings. In 2010, Mr. Carlson left the ACAD to pursue an opportunity in California, and was replaced by Dr. Daniel Doz as President of the ACAD. Dr. Doz did not replace Mr. Carlson on the Premier s Advisory Committee. Dr. Doz did attend, at the invitation of Mr. Lougheed, the Calgary Varsity PC Association Breakfast with the Alberta Cabinet on September 9, 2010, and at that Breakfast Meeting, Joe Lougheed did introduce Dr. Doz to several Ministers, including the Honourable Len Webber, then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. There is no evidence from anyone that there was any communication between Mr. Lougheed and any public office holders present at that Breakfast Meeting that would be considered lobbying as defined in the Act. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. In the spring of 2011, Dr. Doz decided that one of the strategies that ACAD ought to investigate was that of reaching out to Alberta s Aboriginal community, and that a discussion with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Len Webber, might provide some useful information and advice. He directed his then Executive Assistant to contact Minister Webber s office to schedule a meeting, and to include Mr. Lougheed in the meeting; there is no evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Mr. Lougheed had any involvement in the setting up of that meeting which, if he had set up the meeting, would be an act of lobbying as defined in section 1(1)(f)((ii)(A) of the Act. It is agreed by Dr. Doz, Mr. Webber, and Mr. Lougheed that Mr. Lougheed did attend the meeting that subsequently took place, but it is also confirmed by all that the entirety of the conversation was between Mr. Webber and Dr. Doz, and further that the entirety of the conversation consisted of Mr. Webber providing information and advice to Dr. Doz on how the ACAD might reach out to the Aboriginal community in Alberta in other words, it was not a communication that could be characterised as lobbying on the part of either Dr. Doz or Mr. Lougheed, as that term is defined in the Act. It was shortly after that meeting, that Dr. Doz and Mr. Lougheed mutually agreed to terminate Mr. Lougheed s engagement by the ACAD, as the direction in which Dr. Doz wanted to take the College did not require further service from Mr. Lougheed. [21.] The critical element in the definition of lobbying in the Act is that regardless of the subject matter that is the topic of discussion, there must be a communication with an attempt to influence the government with respect to that subject matter. There is no evidence that Mr. Lougheed ever communicated with anyone in the Alberta government about the ACAD, let alone communicating in an attempt to influence the government in any way with respect to the ACAD. Indeed, the evidence is quite clear that he did not Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 6

do that, and that any such communications that would or did occur, were made by the senior officials of the ACAD. FINDINGS [22.] There is no evidence that Joe Lougheed engaged in lobbying as defined in the Act on behalf of the ACAD and accordingly, there was no requirement that he register as a consultant lobbyist. [23.] Joe Lougheed did not breach the Lobbyists Act by failing to register his engagement by the Alberta College of Art and Design to provide services in relation to government and community relations. CONCLUSIONS [24.] As Mr. Joe Lougheed did not breach the Lobbyists Act, imposition of an administrative penalty is not warranted, nor is it authorized in law. Investigation conducted and Investigation Report prepared by: Bradley V. Odsen, Q.C. Lobbyists Act Registrar Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 7

APPENDIX A Selected sections of the Lobbyists Act, S.A. 2007, Chapter L-20.5 Interpretation 1(1) In this Act,.... (b) consultant lobbyist means, subject to subsection (2), a person who, for payment, undertakes to lobby on behalf of a client, and includes an individual engaged by a consultant lobbyist to lobby in respect of an undertaking;.... (d) designated filer means.... (ii) if there is no senior officer, the organization lobbyist or consultant lobbyist, as the case may be;.... (f) lobby means, subject to section 3(2), (i) in relation to either a consultant lobbyist or an organization lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence (A) the development of any legislative proposal by the Government or a prescribed Provincial entity or by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, (B) the introduction of any bill or resolution in the Legislative Assembly or the amendment, passage or defeat of any bill or resolution that is before the Legislative Assembly, (C) the development or the enactment of any regulation or any order in council, (D) the development, establishment, amendment or termination of any program, policy, directive or guideline of the Government or a prescribed Provincial entity, (E) the awarding of any grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the Government or a prescribed Provincial entity, (F) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to transfer from the Crown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the Crown or a prescribed Provincial entity or to the public, or Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 8

(G) a decision by the Executive Council or a member of the Executive Council to have the private sector instead of the Crown provide goods or services to the Government, And (ii) only in relation to a consultant lobbyist, (A) to arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other individual, or (B) to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of the Government or a prescribed Provincial entity;.... (3) For the purposes of this Act, a consultant lobbyist engaged by a prescribed Provincial entity is considered to be a consultant lobbyist..... Duty to file return: consultant lobbyist.... 4(3) If, on the coming into force of this section, a consultant lobbyist is performing an undertaking, the designated filer shall file a return with the Registrar in accordance with subsection (1) not later than 30 days after the day on which this section comes into force..... Investigations 15(1) The Registrar shall conduct an investigation if the Registrar has reason to believe that an investigation is necessary to ensure compliance with this Act. (2) The Registrar may refuse to conduct or may cease an investigation with respect to any matter if the Registrar is of the opinion that (a) the matter is one that could more appropriately be dealt with according to a procedure provided for under another enactment, (b) the matter is minor or trivial, (c) dealing with the matter would serve no useful purpose because of the length of time that has elapsed since the matter arose, or (d) there is any other valid reason for not dealing with the matter. (3) For the purpose of conducting an investigation, the Registrar may Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 9

(a) in the same manner and to the same extent as a justice of the Court of Queen s Bench, (i) summon and enforce the attendance of individuals before the Registrar and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath, and (ii) compel persons to produce any documents or other things that the Registrar considers relevant to the investigation, And (b) administer oaths and receive and accept information, whether or not it would be admissible as evidence in a court of law. (4) An investigation must be conducted in private. (5) Evidence given by an individual in an investigation and evidence of the existence of an investigation are inadmissible against the individual in a court or in any other proceeding, other than in proceedings for perjury in respect of a statement made to the Registrar. (6) The Registrar shall not make adverse findings against an individual unless that individual has had reasonable notice of the substance of the allegations against him or her and a reasonable opportunity to present his or her views. (7) The Registrar, and every individual acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Registrar, may not disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the performance of their duties and functions under this section, unless (a) the disclosure is, in the opinion of the Registrar, necessary for the purpose of conducting an investigation under this section or establishing the grounds for any findings or conclusions contained in a report under section 17, (b) the information is disclosed in a report under section 17 or in the course of a proceeding for perjury in respect of a statement made to the Registrar, (b.1) the disclosure is, in the opinion of the Registrar, necessary for the purpose of enforcing administrative penalties, or (c) the Registrar believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary for the purpose of advising the Minister of Justice and Attorney General or a law enforcement agency of an alleged offence under this Act or any other enactment of Alberta or under an Act of Parliament. Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 10

(8) The Registrar shall immediately suspend an investigation under this section if the Registrar discovers that the subject-matter of the investigation is also the subject-matter of an investigation to determine whether an offence under this Act or any other enactment of Alberta or under an Act of Parliament has been committed or that a charge has been laid with respect to that subject-matter. (9) The Registrar may not continue an investigation under this section until any investigation or charge regarding the same subject-matter has been finally disposed of..... Report 17(1) After an investigation has been conducted by the Registrar, the Registrar shall prepare a report of the investigation, including findings and conclusions and reasons for the findings and conclusions. (1.1) The Ethics Commissioner shall submit the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. (2) On receiving the report from the Ethics Commissioner, the Speaker shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly if it is then sitting or, if it is not then sitting, within 15 days after the commencement of the next sitting. (3) If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting when the Ethics Commissioner submits the report to the Speaker, the Speaker shall forthwith distribute a copy of the report to the office of each Member of the Legislative Assembly. (4) After the copies of the report have been distributed under subsection (3), the Ethics Commissioner may make the report public. (5) Despite subsection (3), if there is no Speaker or if the Speaker is absent from Alberta, the Clerk of the Assembly shall comply with subsection (3) as if the Clerk were the Speaker. (6) The report may contain details of any payment received, disbursement made or expense incurred by an individual who is named in a return required to be filed under section 4 or 5 in respect of any communication referred to in section 1(1)(f) or any meeting referred to in section 1(1)(f)(ii) if the Ethics Commissioner considers publication of the details to be in the public interest. Administrative penalties 18(1) Where the Registrar is of the opinion that a person has contravened a provision of this Act or the regulations, the Registrar may, subject to the regulations under subsection (9), by notice in Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 11

writing served on the person personally or by mail, require that person to pay to the Crown an administrative penalty in the amount set out in the notice for each contravention. (2) The maximum amount of an administrative penalty that may be imposed under subsection (1) is $25 000. (3) A person who pays an administrative penalty in respect of a contravention may not be charged under this Act with an offence in respect of that contravention. (4) A notice under subsection (1) may not be issued more than 2 years after the date on which the contravention occurred. (5) A person who has been served with a notice of administrative penalty pursuant to this section shall pay the amount of the penalty within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. (6) A person who has been served with a notice of administrative penalty may appeal the imposition of the penalty in accordance with the regulations under subsection (9). (7) Subject to the right to appeal, where a person fails to pay an administrative penalty in accordance with the notice of administrative penalty and the regulations under subsection (9), the Registrar may file a copy of the notice of administrative penalty with the clerk of the Court of Queen s Bench and, on being filed, the notice has the same force and effect and may be enforced as if it were a judgment of the Court. (8) Repealed 2009 c5 s8. (9) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting the form and contents of notices of administrative penalties for the purposes of subsection (1); (b) prescribing contraventions in respect of which an administrative penalty may be imposed and, subject to subsection (2), prescribing the amounts, or the manner of determining the amounts, of the administrative penalties that may be imposed; (c) respecting appeals from notices of administrative penalties issued under this section; (d) respecting any other matter necessary for the administration of the system of administrative penalties. Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 12

Offences and penalties 19(1) A person who contravenes section 4, 5, 6 or 10 or a prohibition imposed under subsection (6) is guilty of an offence. (2) A person who lobbies without a return being filed as required by this Act is guilty of an offence. (3) A person who provides false or misleading information in a return filed or other document submitted to the Registrar under this Act is guilty of an offence. (4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (3) if, at the time the information was provided, the person did not know that it was false or misleading and, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have known that it was false or misleading. (5) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is liable (a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000, and (b) for a 2nd and each subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $100 000. (6) If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the Ethics Commissioner may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the number of previous convictions or administrative penalties imposed, if any, prohibit the person who committed the offence for a period of not more than 2 years from lobbying and from filing or having a return filed in respect of the person. (7) The Ethics Commissioner may make public the nature of an offence, the name of the person who committed it, the punishment imposed and, if applicable, any prohibition under subsection (6). (8) If the Ethics Commissioner imposes a prohibition under subsection (6), the Ethics Commissioner shall ensure that information relating to the prohibition is entered into the registry. (9) A prosecution for an offence may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the contravention occurred. Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 13

Selected sections of the Lobbyists Act, General Regulation, A.R. 247/2009 Amount of administrative penalty 7 The amount of an administrative penalty shall be determined by the Registrar, who shall take into account the following factors: (a) the severity of the contravention; (b) the degree of wilfulness or negligence in the contravention; (c) whether or not there was any mitigation relating to the contravention; (d) whether or not steps have been taken to prevent reoccurrence of the contravention; (e) whether or not the person who received the notice of administrative penalty has a history of non-compliance; (f) whether or not the person who received notice of administrative penalty reported himself or herself upon discovery of the contravention; (g) whether or not the person who received notice of administrative penalty has received an economic benefit as a result of the contravention; (h) any other factors that, in the opinion of the Registrar, are relevant. Investigation relating to allegations concerning Mr. Joseph Lougheed Page 14