The Lobbying Activities of Neelam J. Makhija on Behalf of Intrinsyc Software, Inc.

Mr. Makhija's Views

Subsection 10.4(5) of the Lobbyists Registration Act provides that before finding that a person under investigation has breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, the Registrar must give that person a reasonable opportunity to present their views.

On June 28, 2006, I sent a copy of the report that had been prepared by the Investigations Directorate along with a covering letter, via courier, to Mr. Makhija's home. In the letter, I gave Mr. Makhija until August 2, 2006 to provide me with written submissions. I also indicated that if he wished to present his submissions to me in person rather than in writing, he was to notify me no later than July 19, 2006. The courier returned the undelivered report to the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists (ORL) on July 13, 2006. I again sent a copy of this report to Mr. Makhija on July 13, this time by Priority Post.

On July 27, Mr. Makhija's lawyer requested an extension of the original deadline for receipt of written submissions from August 2, 2006 to September 29, 2006. Because Mr. Makhija was being asked his views on a total of four Lobbyists' Code of Conduct investigations during the same period, I granted this extension. On September 27, 2006, the ORL's Director of Investigations spoke with the lawyer to inform him that I had also granted his subsequent request for an additional extension until October 6, 2006. During this conversation the lawyer first raised the issue of Mr. Makhija's wish to present submissions to me in person. On October 4, the lawyer sent his written submissions along with a covering letter. In that letter, his lawyer indicated that the written submissions would not constitute all of Mr. Makhija's views and that oral submissions from Mr. Makhija were necessary.

In my letter to Mr. Makhija's lawyer dated October 17, 2006, I stated that I had fully satisfied the obligations placed upon me pursuant to subsection 10.4(5) of the Act in that I had afforded Mr. Makhija a reasonable opportunity to present his views. Consequently, I determined that I would not meet with Mr. Makhija. Nevertheless, I offered Mr. Makhija an opportunity to present his further submissions in writing, provided that I received them no later than October 27, 2006. The lawyer responded on October 23, 2006 with, inter alia, arguments why I should meet with Mr. Makhija but, despite my offer, without any additional submissions. I wrote to the lawyer on November 7, 2006 to indicate that I would not change my decision with respect to meeting Mr. Makhija.

The following is a summary of Mr. Makhija's views as contained in his lawyer's letter to me of October 4, 2006. The letter contains biographical information about Mr. Makhija as well as descriptions of the work that he carried out during the 1980s and 1990s. Without being specific about Mr. Makhija's activities with respect to any particular company, the letter includes the following assertions:

Officials at TPC asked Mr. Makhija to find projects

During the period covered by this investigation, the registration requirements of the Lobbyists Registration Act did not apply if a public office holder made a written request to a lobbyist seeking their advice or comment on a matter (such as a grant or contribution) that would normally be registrable.

Mr. Makhija's lawyer states that TPC was actively searching for projects in 2000 because its funding and existence were jeopardized by a lack of credible projects and that TPC contacted Mr. Makhija to aid them in finding projects. In fact, "[h]ad it not been for TPC's initial request to Mr. Makhija, Mr Makhija would never have organized the Vancouver visit, nor would he have been involved in any way with the TPC funding process for the companies."

The meetings Mr. Makhija arranged were not subject to registration

The investigation report sent to Mr. Makhija cites two instances where he had arranged meetings - December 2000 and May 2001. The lawyer states that the arrangement of the December 2000 visit was made at the request of TPC officers; the visit was not arranged with respect to any particular company but was arranged so that TPC could see a variety of potential companies and projects; and, at that time, Mr. Makhija was not yet under contract with any of the companies. In the case of the May 2001 visit, it was arranged for the benefit of a TPC officer who had not been able to attend the December 2000 visit, but still wanted to make the trip in order to get a feel for the Vancouver high technology community.

Mr. Makhija did not attempt to influence TPC officials to award contributions

The lawyer contends that Mr. Makhija's communications with TPC officials were never done in an attempt to influence the TPC funding process. He states that the communications between public office holders and Mr. Makhija were logically necessary in order for the funding process to function, but all communications were restricted to providing TPC with information regarding the companies or with regards to the status of the TPC application. He further states that the wording in the MOUs between Mr. Makhija and each company related to advice and strategies discussed between Mr. Makhija and the company.

In summary, Mr. Makhija does not believe that he carried out any activity that would have required registration under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

My observations on Mr. Makhija's views as represented by his lawyer, are contained in the Conclusions chapter of this report.