Government Operations Committee on May 3rd, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, we are considering the future business of this committee.

I just want to run down the list in terms of where we are, in hopes that we can roll through this relatively quickly.

May 5 currently is free, as far as our committee schedule is concerned.

We have witnesses coming on May 10 and May 12. On May 10, it will be the Privy Council Office, on main estimates. The May 12 meeting is on the main estimates as well, and that is when we're going to hear from Public Works and Government Services Canada. Those two meetings are confirmed, so May 10 and 12 are confirmed.

The May 26 meeting is free. We don't have witnesses for that.

On May 31, we have confirmed witnesses with regard to maintenance contracts. Public Works and Government Services Canada are confirmed for that date, as well as SNC-Lavalin.

So on May 5, first and foremost, we have openings. We have May 26 open as well, and then we can go on, if people have suggestions for meetings beyond that.

But these are the meetings. In the interests of planning, these will be the dates. So May 5 and 26 are the ones that we're currently interested in.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

For starters, Mr. Chair, I don't remember agreeing to studying the main estimates on May 10 and May 12, so I don't know who took the liberty to schedule those, and I don't think we should have to consider that as carved in stone. We'll decide when to consider the main estimates, if at all, and not be told when we'll do it.

I would like to suggest, as a matter of fact, that on May 12 we call Helena Guergis. It's a date that we had considered. In fact, I understand Ms. Guergis thinks she is invited to appear on that date. Again, that shouldn't be a reason that we should book her then either, but we have talked in those terms all along, and I was quite comfortable that we were heading in that direction and that we would have Helena Guergis.

While I have the floor I would like to leave with you some other proposed names. On May 5, we should have Brian Jean. I believe we should invite senior staff as well who were named in these e-mails, again keeping in mind that our mandate here is the administration of the green infrastructure fund and if there was any hanky-panky associated with people attempting to access money from the green infrastructure fund. It helps to focus and to narrow our field of study if we have that as the lens through which we look at things.

The names I believe should be listed here are: Sebastien Togneri, who was the director of parliamentary affairs to Christian Paradis, when he was Minister of Public Works and Government Services; David Pierce, who is the director of parliamentary affairs to the industry minister; Phillip Welford, chief of staff to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear; Pippa Hamilton, assistant policy adviser to the Minister of State for Science and Technology; and Catherine Godbout, communications adviser to the Honourable Diane Ablonczy.

I'm not finished. I'd like to get all these out, just for the clerk's sake.

We should have Doug Maley, the assistant deputy minister from Western Economic Diversification Canada, and golfing buddy, I believe, of Rahim Jaffer. We should have David Woynorowski, director general of WEDC.

I have a lot more names here, but I'm going to pass on these for now.

Finally, I would like to suggest that we hear from Mr. Wright, from Wright Tech, and the company owner, whose name escapes me, who was in the newspaper recently saying that Rahim Jaffer offered to arrange a $5 million loan at 2% interest. We'll have to do some research to find the company name and the individual, but in a recent Toronto Star article we found what appears to be pretty much textbook influence peddling, in that this individual was told that Rahim Jaffer was in charge of a $100 million green fund and he would get him a $5 million loan at 2.4% interest, payable back only if the company reaches profitability. That guy I want here as a witness because he will be able to testify about what the expectations were and what was being sole-serviced--

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Through you to Mr. Martin, I just want to make one comment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That's not a point of order.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'm sorry. I apologize to you, Mr. Chair. I will do a point of order, though.

As members around this table discuss witnesses and such that we intend, names are fine, but reaching conclusions about individuals before they even come here to testify does not feel appropriate or even parliamentary, so as a courtesy, I would expect members around this table to show that. If that's not a point of order, I'll withdraw it and perhaps just ask for courtesy.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes, I appreciate the point, Mr. Holder. I think there's general agreement, and hopefully your point is taken.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In a scattergun kind of approach, I'm really only giving the clerk a list of names that I think would be suitable witnesses. I don't expect us to schedule all of them. I think we should all put forward our wish lists, perhaps, and then the clerk can try to choose a representative group selected from that main list. That's the way I have seen it done.

The only reason I'm outlining the details of this particular newspaper article is because I can't remember the company name that is associated with it, but I think the clerk would be able to track that down.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think you're looking for Ian Harvey.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Very good. Thank you. That would be it.

In closing, then, I've said all along that we should invite the three clients Mr. Jaffer and his partner made reference to during their testimony here. Green Rite is one of them, and there are two others, the solar photovoltaic electricity-generating proposal and the DPS Kinetic renewable energy generation proposal.

I think it's useful for us to hear from the clients of Mr. Jaffer, to have them testify whether or not there were expectations that he could deliver on or have undue influence over the success of applications for government grants.

That's the list that I propose we choose from.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

There are two things. The clerk assures me, and I do recall this as well, that May 10 and May 12 have been set aside for over a month for consideration of main estimates, so those have been confirmed, and the witnesses...and that was passed by a motion of this committee over a month ago.

In terms of the witness list, Mr. Martin, the clerk also advises me that it's important that we stay to the mandate under which we have started this study, and it is specific to the green fund. I know that the story and the scope of the story maybe sometimes go outside of the green fund, but many of the ministries you spoke of actually don't have a correlation to the green fund. So we need to build that connection to the green fund in order to be within the mandate of the study.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I understand that, and it's why I prefaced my remarks by saying we do have to remember that our mandate is to study the application and administration of the green infrastructure fund moneys and the possibility that there was undue influence of lobbyists associated with it.

The last witness, though, who is key and paramount, and who I forgot to mention...we need to recall Rahim Jaffer, and I suggest June 9.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Coady.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Martin.

I concur with a lot of what you have requested, but I do have a question. In our original motion we called on Minister Raitt and Minister Paradis. I'm wondering what's occurring. Have they been invited for May 5 or not? I'm seeking clarity on that before I go to my witness list, because they were part of the original motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

As you know, I'm the vice-chair, not the chair, so I need to seek clarity on some of these things.

As to the main motion that was passed, you know there was no decision as of the last meeting as to what would happen. The clerk has been requested to find out if they would be available, but he hasn't had a response. So the chair of the committee has asked the clerk to find out about their availability.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

For clarity, then, the clerk is investigating whether Minister Raitt and Minister Paradis are available for Wednesday, May 5.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

He has sought to find out, but he hasn't heard back.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think that's kind of critical, because we want to make sure we have witnesses for Wednesday, May 5. I'm in agreement that if it's not Minister Raitt and Minister Paradis, if that doesn't suit their timelines, I would like to keep them on the list. I'm fine with Mr. Jean, and I'd like to add one more person to Mr. Martin's list that he said upfront was.... Derek Snowdy has some information that I think needs to be brought before committee. So I would add Mr. Snowdy to Mr. Martin's list. I also think we should have John Baird. I think he was in the original motion as well, so we want to make sure we have him at some point. I'm in concurrence with everyone else that my colleague, Mr. Martin, has set out to be called.

My suggestion is if Minister Raitt and Minister Paradis are not available for May 5, then I would be supportive of Brian Jean and possibly Derek Snowdy, and if not those, then going to the staff Mr. Martin outlined. I think you did mention Sebastien Togneri; yes, you did. I'm sure I heard that name. I only want to make sure the list is complete.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Patrick Brown, I believe, had some comments.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We referenced earlier the main estimates, that we hadn't actually discussed May 10 or 12. Maybe the clerk could check for us. Maybe my memory is failing me, but I thought that about a month ago we did. When Ms. Ratansi was here, I thought we actually agreed to May 10 and 12.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I was able to confirm that, and that is correct. Yes, we have them confirmed for the meetings on May 10 and 12.

I think we're seeking, at this point, clarity on the May 5 meeting. We haven't any witnesses confirmed. That's this coming Wednesday. I think that's the largest concern we have at this moment.

In terms of how we should proceed, a number of witnesses have been suggested. I don't know if we want to task the clerk with figuring out who's available for that meeting, because clearly there's limited time.

Ms. Coady.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

This doesn't have to do with this particular study, but we don't want to lose sight of the PBO and Correctional Service of Canada. I don't know if we can possibly move the main estimates. We did talk about having the PBO's corrections report on May 10. So I'll raise that and see if anyone has interest in moving one of those dates.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. There are actually a number of witnesses who we as a committee have pushed off, and the PBO is one of them. So we need to find time for him and the Correctional Service of Canada, which I suspect will come in a combination of a single meeting.

We also have the Office of the Information Commissioner, which we have sought for the study on the budget freezes, and we have Public Works and Government Services Canada as it relates to that study as well. These are all witnesses who have been pushed off.

Just to give members some general clarity of the backlog we're creating in our committee, we sometimes wish summer was sooner, but the fact is that we probably don't have time to conclude everything.

We have also, of course, the issue of the maintenance contracts, and my hope is to be able to complete that on May 31 with those witnesses.

We also have the private member's bill from the Bloc, about the use of wood, which is referred to our committee. So if there's any interest in getting that through committee or even beginning that before the summer, we may want to work that into the schedule as well.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We do have until October to review that bill, as I understand it—I'm getting nods—so we're not in any rush. I think what we talked about at this committee before was continuing on with the business that we have been doing, on the Monday, and leaving the Wednesdays free to discuss the green energy fund. I think that's what we had discussed briefly.