With respect to the first part of your question, I would say that it's really a matter of encouraging compliance. Bearing in mind that in countries like Canada, which have only criminal penalties, if there is any suspicion that a lobbyist has committed an offence, the only recourse after investigation is to refer the case to the relevant judicial authority.
Giving the institution responsible for ensuring compliance with the law power to impose administrative penalties or to suspend a lobbyist from the registry temporarily does indeed encourage compliance and ensures penalties are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. For instance, for minor offences, such as forgetting to update disclosures, which may not be done on purpose, it's appropriate to apply lower monetary penalties.
I don't have the exact number of countries where the agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation has that option. Our indicators don't cover that. However, we can send you examples.
Ireland's framework is actually one of the most relevant examples I mentioned. It could be an example of best practice for Canada. It's a very good example, because it provides the ability to impose administrative penalties.