Government Operations Committee on June 2nd, 2010

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No, not me. It was never submitted to me.

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

You just said that you take ultimate responsibility. So it was never submitted to you....

I'm confused. Either you take the responsibility or you do not.

She sent it to--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

What I said was that--this is important--I am the only one who can authorize the approval of a project, under grants and contributions, submitted to the department, much like I would--

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

So the writing on the top, “From Rahim”, which we know came from Kimberley Michelutti--that was a fast-tracking of the application, kind of making an indication of where it came from, that this was important. Yes or no?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In fact there was no application received.

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

There was no application received. So the information that was submitted to the department, that came by way of your office, that was no application, yet was moved to the department with a note “From Rahim”.

Why was that fast-tracked? I mean, it's unbelievable.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

If I could, I disagree with the term “fast-tracked”. As I understand what Kimberley does, she writes a reference note at the top right hand of the form about where it was obtained from and then she forwards it on to the department.

I would regularly, whether it's from members of Parliament or from any number of people--

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

So anyone can do that?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes.

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

If John Smith wanted to come into your office, you'd casually write “From John”, send it to the department, get a full review of a non-proposal, and give back results?

You have to remember, of course--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I never said that I would write “From John” at the top; I said that's how Kimberley does it.

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

Well, “From Rahim” was written at the top of this one.

What's very interesting is that of course we heard testimony before this committee that if they had received any indication that there would have been approval by this, or quasi-approval, then there might have been a finder's fee. We heard that from testimony earlier.

But in the interest of time, I want to turn to Mr. Maley, the ADM for Western Economic Diversification.

In April 2009, Scott Wenger, who's the senior staff to Minister Prentice, met with Rahim Jaffer in an office assigned to Helena Guergis to discuss a proposal on behalf of RLP Energy. We know that Mr. Wenger instructed you to evaluate the proposal and you asked officials to review it “on a priority basis, as you need to get back to Rahim”.

Was there any pressure exerted by the minister's office that required your need to “get back to Rahim”?

[Doug Maley]

I had a conversation with Mr. Jaffer, where he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Prentice's office. I didn't have any contact with Minister Prentice's office until it was later in June, when we were talking about another subject. I brought up to him that we had looked at the RLP Energy proposal, the proposal was assessed in the department, we found that it didn't fit, and no funds were provided to that project. That's what I told Mr. Wenger from Minister Prentice's office, that it did not fit, and there was no further follow-up.

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

So why were you looking for a priority basis--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Coady, that's it.

I have to be very strict with the time.

Mr. Guimond, for eight minutes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not sanction the circus atmosphere that the three Conservative ministers have created by coming here today, even though they were not invited. I am a democrat and I will bow to the democratic will of the committee and go along with the vote on Mr. Warkentin's motion that we allow them to testify, even though they were not invited to appear.

Since I do not wish to sanction the strong-arm tactics of these three ministers, I will refrain from asking them any questions. It will be up to the committee, Madam Chair, when it discusses future business in camera, to decide who it will invite for future meetings. If we need to have these three ministers shed light on the issue, we will invite them back and I'm sure they will be delighted to accept our invitation.

I might also add that even though the three ministerial staffers declined to attend, I hope the committee will issue another invitation and, if necessary, summon them to appear before the committee to explain their actions.

That said, I would like to turn the floor over to my colleague Mr. Nadeau, the Member for Gatineau, who will question the two witnesses who were formally invited and agreed to come here, including Mr. Morin, an official with PWGSC. I am confident that there will be some good questions for him. I congratulate them for being polite and for accepting the committee's invitation to testify.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, I apologize for what happened earlier. Such things do happen, albeit rarely. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

That said, you do understand that the committee is looking into whether Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud engaged in lobbying activities, even though they were not registered anywhere as lobbyists.

Mr. Morin, I've read and examined the documents provided to us. Your name appears from time to time. I would like to know what transpired prior to the October 28 meeting. I'm not asking you to speculate. If you know for certain what happened, then please enlighten us. However, if you don't know, then just say so.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Glémaud was there on October 28, as Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud were working together. Beginning in August of 2009, did they, as lobbyists, seek to benefit from your expertise or, at the very minimum, to find out more about the installation of solar panels on the roofs of federal government buildings? Did they introduce themselves as lobbyists?

[André Morin]

As far as I know, they requested a meeting to promote their product, and nothing more.

In answer to that question, I would like to mention that the guide for doing business with the Government of Canada sets out a five-step approach for small and medium enterprises. This guide makes it very clear that all Canadians have access to the government. Service providers can promote themselves and are encouraged to do so. The guide tells suppliers who they should talk to, namely the responsible officials in government agencies, branches and divisions that need your goods and services. The guide is quite clear about this.

All I know is that the gentleman was there to promote his company.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

And that gentleman would be?

[André Morin]

I'm referring to Mr. Glémaud.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So then, they followed the standard procedures set out in the guide to doing business with the Government of Canada? Is that correct?

[André Morin]

That is correct.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Good. It's important to be as clear as possible about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's 5:30, and I will need a majority vote to....

Yes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If I may, Madam Chair, considering that Minister Goodyear has made it clear that he wants more time, I would expect the members from the Conservative Party to support a motion to extend the time to a quarter to six.