Evidence of meeting #22 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Those are not the documents mentioned in this motion. That has nothing to--
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
When you read this motion, it says we should not have Rahim Jaffer come on June 9, so I presume we're going to eliminate that sentence. Any reference to Rahim Jaffer is eliminated.
It also needs to be changed that Helena Guergis is not going to be here on June 9 and we're going to add Arthur Hamilton. We've chalked up this motion to the point where we should start fresh and just say let's invite Arthur Hamilton. I'd like to speak to that.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't know what we hope to gain by having Arthur Hamilton. I think it may take away from having Rahim Jaffer here. Mr. Hamilton is the guy who Snowdy went to, but we already know what Snowdy told him. We already have this testimony straight from the horse's mouth. Now we're going to ask another witness what Mr. Snowdy told him that caused him so much alarm that he phoned the Prime Minister. I don't think it's worth bringing him into the mix at this late date, at our second to last meeting of this committee. I actually don't agree that he'd be a good one.
If we can't have Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis here, I'd rather have just Rahim Jaffer and be able to grill him on the inconsistencies of his testimony as we know them. So I'm going to vote against this motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Fair enough.
Mrs. Mendes, do you wish to provide some clarification?
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
On the motion, I had already proposed that we chop off everything after “June 9, 2010”, in the second line.
Liberal
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
So your motion is simply that we invite Arthur Hamilton to appear on Wednesday, June 9.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
It's a little bit like tennis: one side, and then the other.
I would concur with Mrs. Mendes. I think it makes some sense to have Mr. Hamilton attend. He has indicated his willingness to attend. We have June 9 set. Frankly, in the absence of that, we probably don't have a meeting anyway on Wednesday. If that's the pleasure of the committee, I suppose that's a choice one can make.
It strikes me, when my good friend Mr. Martin says we've heard it from the horse's mouth, that we've heard a lot of horses' mouths. When people speak and you hear their testimony, it sounds so plausible and clear. Then, all of a sudden, another person speaks and it's somewhat less plausible and clear; and then a third party speaks. It just seems to me that, to get to the truth, which I think we're all looking to determine—that's the whole purpose of this—what we want to do I think is to hear from appropriate persons. It strikes me that Mr. Hamilton is an appropriate person to hear.
I apologize if that's the long way of saying that I would support Mrs. Mendes' motion that we finish it at the end of the second line where it says “June 9, 2010”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
I would then ask for a vote on the amended motion, which reads:
That the Committee, as part of its study of renewable energy project funding by the Government, invite to appear Arthur Hamilton for its meeting on Wednesday, June 9, 2010.
Mr. Holder.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
For clarification, typically we indicate the amount of time. I'm not sure that two hours is particularly necessary, but do we stipulate in this that it would be an hour? Do you have a sense of that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
We could stipulate an hour, because Mr. Jaffer is still supposed to be here. We can have the first hour with Mr. Hamilton and the second hour with Mr. Jaffer.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
We're going to need more time with Jaffer than one hour and one round. You're throwing in a whole other issue here by bringing in Mr. Hamilton. He's very heavily charged politically. He's the lawyer for the Conservative Party of Canada. It's not going to be just a guy coming by for a chit-chat here. It's going to blow this place wide open. We're better off using our time talking to Jaffer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
You just asked for clarification. I have asked for a vote.
Mr. Warkentin, did you have a clarification?
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
No, just a question, because I think it goes further.
We've had all kinds of witnesses before our committee, and we're studying the green energy project. I wonder if Mrs. Mendes can explain to me what specifically Arthur Hamilton has to do as it directly corresponds to the studies we have before us right now.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
We're trying to address the lobbying part of all this, how or if there was any inappropriate lobbying done by either Ms. Guergis or Mr. Jaffer, and why Ms. Guergis was thrown out of caucus and thrown out of cabinet.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Is that the Liberals' plan, or is that the plan of this committee?
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I don't recall this committee ever entertaining a study.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
No, it's the lobbying part of accessing the green fund.