Author: admin

The riding association of Conservative MP Lisa Raitt held a $250-a-ticket fundraiser on Sept 24, 2009 that was organized by some registered lobbyists and which was attended by some lobbyists registered to lobby the department of natural resources. Raitt was then the minister of natural resources. The Liberals and NDP complained to Parliament's Conflict-of-Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson. Dawson issued her report today clearing Raitt of any wrongdoing but calling for a review of the relationship of lobbyists to political fundraisers. Here's one chunk of her report in which we find yet another lobbyist boasting of the “juice” he has with a federal government minister:

Mr. Michael McSweeney is the brother of Colin McSweeney, who was at the time of the fundraising event Manager of Ms. Raitt’s Hill Office. Michael McSweeney is the Vice-President, Industry Relations, of the Cement Association of Canada, a national trade association representing Canadian cement producers …
The first time Michael McSweeney lobbied Ms. Raitt was on March 3, 2009 during the Cement Association’s Lobby Day on the Hill. Mr. Pierre Boucher, President of the Cement Association, Mr. McSweeney and several Directors had a lunch meeting with Ms. Raitt and members of her ministerial staff. Mr. Boucher told my Office that the Cement Association officials initiated a general discussion about a project that the Association wanted to submit for funding under a program at the Department of Natural Resources. At that time, he believed that the project was ineligible under the program.

Mr. Boucher recalled that Ms. Raitt had explained that the project might qualify as a pilot project and that they should follow up with her officials to pursue it. Ms. Raitt recalled having general discussions about the cement industry but did not recall the specifics of any particular project. Michael McSweeney told us that no particular project was discussed but that the opportunity was taken to educate those at the lunch meeting about the overall climate change file, the cement manufacturing process in particular and the cement industry’s thermal capabilities.

The second time Michael McSweeney lobbied Ms. Raitt was during the fundraising event on September 24, 2009, which he attended with a few cement industry officials whom he had invited. Ms. Raitt recalled meeting them and speaking with them for a few minutes.

Mr. McSweeney told Ms. Raitt that the Cement Association had just submitted a funding application to her Department for a project under the Clean Energy Fund. This was the same project that had been referred to by Mr. Boucher during the March 3, 2009 lunch. Mr. McSweeney said that no further details about the project were discussed at the event.

.After the event and later that same evening, Michael McSweeney sent an email to several Cement Association of Canada members and Directors, and to his boss Mr. Pierre Boucher, President of the Cement Association. In the email, Mr. McSweeney reported that he had just had cocktails with Ms. Raitt and that she was excited about the particular project and wanted to have a personal copy so she could “see how to push it”. He stated in the email that she had said that there were $3 billion in applications for a $200 million fund. He said in the email that he would give a copy of the application to his brother Colin, who worked for her, to give to her personally. The email also stated that he had sold 40 tickets to the fundraiser for her and that she was pleased about that.

Michael McSweeney told my Office that he very much regretted and was ashamed of having sent that email, which he described as “self-aggrandising” and “very boastful”, and said that he was just trying to make himself look good. He said that he had only sold about six tickets, and that he did not give a copy of the application to his brother to give to Ms. Raitt. He also said that when he told Ms. Raitt that the funding applications had been filed, she said “That’s great. Make sure I get a copy so I can push for it.” He said he didn’t think Ms. Raitt knew what the project was and that this was a “gratuitous comment” that all politicians make and he took the comment for what it was.

When shown the email during her interview, Ms. Raitt was very surprised and taken aback that there was a suggestion that she would have offered to support this particular project and said that she did not recall having been given any details about it. Ms. Raitt explained that no applications for funding under the program had been processed yet because the Request for Proposals had just closed, that she did not recall saying that she would “push” any particular project and that in reality she “can’t push anything.” She also stated that she had never been given a copy of this application or details of the project by Colin McSweeney. Colin McSweeney confirmed that he had never received a copy of the application.

Here's the rush transcript of a key moment in the two-hour testimony of Derrick Snowdy, private investigator, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. (Note: Snowdy insisted on being sworn in before his testimony):

Alexendra Mendes (LPC, Brossard-La Prairie): I would like to ask you about your communications with the ethics commissioner. Who initiated those communications or those contacts?

Derrick Snowdy: I received a phone call at two o'clock in the afternoon on April 9th from —

Mendes: The same day you spoke with [Conservative Party of Canada] Mr. [Arthur] Hamilton the first time?

Snowdy: That's correct. I was actually — I actually broke a tooth the night of April 8th grinding my teeth watching the news. I got a phone call at two in the afternoon of the 9th from a man who identified himself as Mr. Eppo Maertens. He provided me with his name and telephone number. I was going into the dentist to have my tooth repaired and I told him I would phone him back. I made some preliminary inquiries. I tasked one of my assistants to find out who Mr. Maertens was and I was out of the dental chair at 3:30. I received a report back as to Mr. Maertens was and the fact that he was an employee of the ethics commissioner's office. And at four in afternoon I returned Mr. Maerten's phone call.

Mendes: And what was the theme of your discussions?

Snowdy: Mr. Maertens said to me that he had received a leter from Mr. Guy Giorno in the prime minister's office in which the letter indicated that I had made specific alegations and claims against a member of Parliament. I asked him if he would read me the letter. He put me on hold for minute and a half, came back and read to me a letter that said my name in it several times. It said Derrick Snowdy says this, Derrick Snowdy says that about the conduct of the minister. And I said no. I did not say that. No, sir I did not say that.

Mendes: Are you implying he lied?

Snowdy: Pardon me?

Mendes: Are you implying he lied?

Snowdy: Who lied, ma'am.

Mendes: Giorno. Who wrote the letter.

Snowdy: I've never seen the letter, ma'am. Mr. Maertens told me he had a letter from Mr. Giorno. That's what the letter stated. I said no, in fact I'd never spoken to Mr. Giorno. At that point in time Mr. Maertens said to me: well, it appears I don't have a complaint here. Thank you very much. Good-bye.

Mendes: And you've never had —

Snowdy: The entire conversation lasted a grand total of eight minutes and 35 seconds. I was on hold for a minute and a half of that. And when I got of the phone, I had a rather agitated phone call to [Conservative Party lawyer] Arthur Hamilton.

Mendes: You called him. And what was said in that conversation?

Snowdy: there were a number of profanities, and expressing —

Mendes: By whom to whom?

Snowdy: From me to Mr. Hamilton. I was not very happy with the characterization of that conversation and that context. and Mr. Hamilton was sympathetic to my call.

Here's our full story coming out of Snowdy's testimony:

Private investigator Derrick Snowdy said the Prime Minister's Office misrepresented allegations Snowdy made about the conduct of fired minister Helena Guergis and her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, in a letter the PMO sent to Parliament's ethics commissioner.
Canwest News Service has learned that Snowdy was the sole source of allegations that prompted Harper, on April 9, to fire Guergis from cabinet, kick her out of the Conservative caucus and call in the RCMP and the ethics commissioner to investigate Guergis' conduct.
A senior government official, however, says the prime minister was moved to fire Guergis for reasons beyond the informations Snowdy provided.
“Snowdy was the straw that broke the camel's back,” the official said.
In a remarkable moment during two hours of testimony Wednesday at the House of Commons government operations and estimates committee, Snowdy said the information the Prime Minister's Office passed on to the ethics commissioner was not an accurate reflection of the information that he gave Harper's closest advisers hours before Harper asked for and received Guergis' resignation.

[Read the rest]