Month: April 2010

If you are a town or city and you want some federal funding for your infrastructure project, you can't get it unless you promise to pay for and put up a big separate sign that lets everyone know that the federal government's Economic Action Plan is kicking in some cash.

Liberal MP Siobhan Coady wanted to know just how many signs Ottawa had forced municipalities to buy and pay so she wrote up an “Order Paper” question. Yesterday, the written answer was tabled in the House of Commons in the name of Conservative MP Sylvie Boucher. Here's what Hansard has:

Question No. 49–
Ms. Siobhan Coady:

With regard to Canada’s Economic Action plan signs the government has purchased: (a) how many signs were purchased; (b) what was the cost of each sign; and (c) what was the total cost to the government?

Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in regard to part a) of the question, the Privy Council Office, PCO, coordinates communications for the implementation of the economic action plan, EAP. However, departments and agencies are responsible for the execution and funding of EAP projects, including signage. As part of this role, PCO monitors progress on the installation of signage. As of the week ending March 5, 2010, 5,337 signs have been installed across Canada.

In regard to parts (b) and (c) of the question, the costs for signs vary widely depending on a number of factors, including the type, size, location for installation or the availability of bulk purchasing. For the majority of EAP projects, signage is part of the agreements negotiated by the Government of Canada with its partners—the provinces, territories and municipalities. The costs for signs are also covered by the same agreements, where project partners share the cost of the signs. Moreover, signage costs are often included in overall project costs in the same way as engineering, construction supplies, fencing and other expenses. A separate budget is not identified for such signs, and so, determining costs for signage would be a difficult and lengthy exercise. This work would also require federal-provincial-municipal discussions and would result in incomplete and unreliable information given that total costs will not be available until all invoices are received. Detailed accounting for all Government of Canada expenditures will be available through the Public Accounts of Canada.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice confirmed today that about 18 months ago, former Edmonton MP Rahim Jaffer approached Prentice in the Parliament buildings to inquire about federal subsidies for “green” projects. Prentice said he took about “30 seconds” to tell Jaffer the green infrastructure funds had nothing to do with him. Some time after that, Jaffer and his partner Patrick Glemaud brought three projects to the attention of MP Brian Jean and, according to Jean, asked Jean's advice about their suitability for accessing federal infrastructure funding. Glemaud says they were merely “information gathering” sessions with Jean.

Neither Jaffer nor Glemaud were, at the time, registered lobbyists. Should they have been? Certainly, the Liberals think so and have said as much. The Liberals have asked the Lobbying Commissioner to investigate.

Glemaud told me Tuesday: “There was no lobbying ever involved. We never collected any money. We have no contract whatsoever.”

Glemaud has also filed a letter with the Lobbying Commissioner promising to co-operate fully. This is an excerpt from that letter:

This letter is to serve notice that GPG – Green Power Generation Corp. and its Directors, Mr. Rahim Jaffer and Mr. Patrick Glémaud, intend to cooperate fully with your office if any investigation or review is initiated regarding the alleged violations raised in the above noted letter from the Liberal Party of Canada. In the event of an investigation, we hope that this matter will be dealt with as quickly as due process will allow.

As per “The Lobbying Act: A Summary of New Requirements”, dated June 2008, “The Lobbying Act defines activities that, when carried out for compensation, are considered to be lobbying.” GPG and its Directors are of the position that the corporation and its Directors, Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud, did not undertake any “lobbying activities” on behalf of any person or organization in exchange of payment as per the provisions of the Lobbying Act and its related Regulations. The allegations raised by the Liberal Party in its letter dated April 12, 2010 are false and inaccurate, and are simply the result of ongoing political machinations.

Jaffer has not responded to any of my interview requests.

Let's look at The Lobbying Act for what it can tell us on this question.

The Act, in its entirety, is here.

First of all, Jaffer and Glemaud were business partners in a corporation they set up called Green Power Generation Inc. There is no indication that they were seeking information from Prentice or Jaffer on behalf of clients of their corporation. They were seeking information on their own company's behalf. So, the part of the Act that applies here would be Section 7, which deals with “In House Lobbyists (Corporations or Organizations).

That section says:

7. (1) The officer responsible for filing returns for a corporation or organization shall file with the Commissioner, in the prescribed form and manner, a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (3) if:

• (a) the corporation or organization employs one or more individuals any part of whose duties is to communicate with public office holders on behalf of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, on behalf of any subsidiary of the employer or any corporation of which the employer is a subsidiary, in respect of …

• (v) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada;

If I read this correctly — and I'm no lawyer, though Glemaud is — that if you wish to communicate with a public office holder on behalf of your company “in respect of” getting a government grant, then you must file a return with the Commissioner of Lobbying, i.e. register.

So who are these public officer holders?

Let's go back to the Act and Section 2, on “Definitions:””

“public office holder” means any officer or employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada and includes

(a) a member of the Senate or the House of Commons and any person on the staff of such a member,

So clearly, Prentice and Jean, because they were both members of the House of Commons are “public office holders”.

There are punishments for failing to register and they are not insignificant. The Act says that every individual who fails to register when, according to the Act, they ought to have registered is liable, “on summary conviction” to a fine of up to $50,000 or a prison term of six moths and if convicted on indictment, to a fine of up to $200,000 and prison term of up to two years.

The Commissioner of Lobbying maintains an online database, incidentally, which anyone can search to see who is a registered lobbyist and what activities they are lobbying about.

For the first time in Canadian history, reporters covering the proceedings in the House of Commons today will find power outlets near their seats in the Commons press gallery, above the Speakers chair. You may think this is trivial but I think this is a momentous thing. Having a power outlet here means you can stay in the House of Commons and keep enough juice in your portable computer to cover those all-night “take-note” debates. You may think I'm being facetious but I”m not. While there's no doubt that media coverage often focuses on the antics of Question Period, I suspect some reporters would spend more time in the House — and in committee rooms — covering the serious business of this place if they could stay electronically tied to their desks. I can bring my own network connection — I 'tether' the MacBook I'm typing this on to my iPhone via BlueTooth and then use my iPhone as a wireless modem — but I can't bring my own electricity.

So I think this is a big first and I hope it means there is now one less barrier to spending more time covering the nation's business.