Category: Politics/Conservatives

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]

Sebastien Togneri is the director of parliamentary affairs to Christian Paradis, the minister of natural resources and, last week, won “most wanted” status by two House of Commons committees.

The House of Commons Government Operations and Estimates committee wants him to testify about how he urged meetings between Rahim Jaffer and departmental bureaucrats when his boss, Paradis, was minister of public works and goverment services. Meanwhile, the House of Commons Access to Information, Ethics, and Privacy committee had to compel him to testify last week via a subpoena about his role in trying to “unrelease” some records bureaucrats in PWGSC were about to give to a reporter who had made a request under the Access to Information act.

My experience with political aides is that, generally speaking, this is way too much spotlight for a staffer.

Thrust into the spotlight, Togneri did his best last week to scramble back into the shadows by providing singularly unhelpful answers to the questions put to him by opposition MPs. ( I suppose those MPs should have expected that to happen). Meanwhile, Togneri was very pleased to answer questions put to him by the Conservative MPs on the ethics committee most of which were along the lines of “Are you committed to accountability and transparency?”

But there was one question which made Togneri and other Conservatives squirm: Who paid for the lawyer which first advised Togneri not to testify and then sat beside throughout his testimony, whispering occasional advice to him?

BQ MP Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac asked that question of Togneri. At first Togneri challenged the MP as to its relevance. That, of course, is not something witnesses do. As a witness, you answer the question. The committee and its chair will decide on the relevance of the answer. (Speaking of which, one spectacularly irrelevant exchange occurred when Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre spent 7 minutes or so asking Togneri about his career as a Parliamentary tour guide) Then, after consulting with his lawyer, Togneri said he did not have to answer Thi Lac's question because of solicitor-client privilege. I hope that wasn't legal advice he paid for because any law student will tell you that the privilege belongs to the client — i.e. Togneri — and as a result the client is free to say anything he wants about his relationship with his lawyer.

Now before I continue, I should note at this point that when Togneri was asked by several Conservative MPs if we was committed to transparency and accountability, he said he “Yes.”

Except, I guess, when it comes to answering “The taxpayers of Canada” when an MP asks him several times at a House of Commons committee who paid for his lawyer.

Finding out that it was, indeed, not Togneri but you and I paying for his lawyer took a long time. I asked Togneri myself after the meeting had concluded but he declined to say anything. One of his colleagues also refused to say but promised to get back to me later that day with an answer. And so, later that day, good to their word, Paradis' communications director Margaux Stastny called to say I would have to get the answer I was looking for from the media relations people at the Treasury Board and that, no, she could not give me the “yes or no” answer I was seeking to the question: Are taxpayers paying Togneri's legal bills?

So I phoned up and e-mailed Pierre-Alain Bujold, the media relations spokesperson, at Treasury Board.

Bujold responded promptly by providing me with a link to Treasury Board's Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification which was all very good and interesting but, as I replied to him, that really wasn't the answer to the question: Is the government paying Togneri's legal bills? To which Bujold replied: “The policy clearly sets forth the conditions under which legal assistance can be provided.” And so I was back to Stastny …

She called late in the day to apologize for the runaround and to tell me that, yes, Togneri's bills for the services of lawyer Jean-François Lecours were being paid by taxpayers.

Why is this such an important point?

Togneri has hired Lecours because Togneri is the subject of an investigation by Parliament's Information Commissioner who is investigating allegations that Togneri violated the Access to Information Act by interfering with the release of records requested under the Act. Opposition MPs — and the information commissioner, presumably — wanted to know why he did that? Was he acting independently? Was he acting on orders from Paradis or political aides in the PMO? In other words, will he try to take the fall for someone?

And so the question about who is paying for his lawyer is really a way of asking whose interests is that lawyer protecting? Is the lawyer acting in the best interests of Togneri or is the lawyer acting in the best interests of the government?

The Conservative Party of Canada's national council decided, yesterday, to strip MP Helena Guergis of the right to run as a Conservative in her riding of Simcoe-Grey. Guergis first won that riding in 2004 by just over 100 votes. IN 2006, voters gave her a 12,000 vote cushion and boosted that again to 18,000 in 2008.

Now, because of her party's decision, the only way those in her riding can cast a ballot in a federal election again is if she runs as an independent.

She says the party's decision is wrong, that the governing national council “should be respecting the wishes of the grassroots electors and allowing due process to take course.”

Here's the text of her letter of appeal (it is addressed to Dan Hilton, the party's executive director):

Dear Mr. Hilton,

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated May 5, 2010, advising me of the decision The National Candidate Selection Committee (NCSC) of the Conservative Party of Canada has taken to remove me as the candidate of record in the Electoral District of Simcoe-Grey. Please be advised that this letter is notice of my intention to formally appeal the decision of NCSC.

Your letter refers to recent events as the reason that this decision was made; perhaps you could highlight for me what I have done to justify this drastic measure. Specifically, I ask that you please provide the details of what led the NCSC to make this decision, especially at a time when no election is imminent.

In recent weeks, in essence, I have been charged, convicted, and sentenced without any due process or knowing what I have done wrong. There have been endless rumours and allegations unfairly levelled against me, but to date I have not been given a specific reason for my removal from caucus nor has there been any investigation launched, let alone concluded.  

I am confident that I have done nothing wrong and will be exonerated of all the baseless accusations in the media. It is unfortunate that I have been left in a situation where I am not able to defend myself appropriately and am waiting for the RCMP to make a decision on information that has not been made privy to me.

I have dedicated over six years of my life to advance the cause of our Federal Party and am grateful for the opportunity to have served both in the House of Commons and in Cabinet. I have also represented the constituents of Simcoe-Grey to the best of my ability and have been returned as a result as the Conservative Member in three separate elections. I should at least be given the opportunity to honour this record. The Party should be respecting the wishes of the grassroots electors and allowing due process to take course.

In conclusion, I humbly ask that the NCSC reverse its decision in order to give me the opportunity to clear my name and rejoin the Conservative Party of Canada caucus.

Hon. Helena Guergis, PC. MP.
Simcoe-Grey   

The Bank of Montreal alleges in court documents filed this week that it is the victim of a massive mortgage fraud, believed to be the largest such fraud in Canadian history.

BMO is suing hundreds of people who it believes helped perpetrate the fraud on the bank, a fraud which the bank says cost it $30 million.

One of those named by BMO in the court documents is Devinder Shory (left), the first term Conservative MP representing Calgary Northeast. The bank says Shory was the lawyer of record for four of the transactions the bank claims were fraudulent.

None of the claims have been proven in court.

I tried to speak to Shory about this claim this evening. Shory was in the House of Commons for several votes at about 5:30 p.m. but he took a route into and out of the House of Commons that allowed him to avoid me and other reporters who wanted to talk to him about this.

Later this evening, his office issued this statement:

“Through media stories, it has come to my attention that I have been named in a civil matter.

I want to state that I have not yet been served with a statement of claim. When I am, I will defend myself vigourously against these accusations. I have done nothing wrong.

As the matter is before the courts, I have no further comment at this time.”

[IMPORTANT UPDATE: The department of Natural Resources has a response to this post.]

Conservative cabinet ministers Lisa Raitt and Christian Paradis have been asked by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to testify about what, if any, contacts they, their staff, or their bureaucrats had with Rahim Jaffer or his business partner Patrick Glemaud.

A documentary record has been supplied to the Lobbying Commissioner that Jaffer had extensive contact with politicians, aides, and staff in several departments but, so far, nothing has turned up to show that Jaffer had any contact with anyone from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Raitt, until earlier this year, was the Minister of Natural Resources and Paradis succeeded her in that job.

Opposition MPs contend that, because the Minister of Natural Resources was responsible for the administration of some “green-tech” funds, they believe Jaffer would have reached out to some in that department, as he had in others, for “green-tech” program information.

But both Raitt and Paradis yesterday submitted letters to the Government Operations committee in which, according to the Liberals, they both say:

“My office has searched for relevant records an no records were found.:

But…

On April 16, the Opposition Leaders Office submitted a request to the Ministry of Natural Resources asking, under federal Access to Information laws, for all “records of communications your department may have had with Rahim Jaffer, Patrick Glemaud or any representative of Green Power Energy Generation COrp. (sic).”

The ATI co-ordinator at Natural Resources has replied to the OLO saying:

“A preliminary review of the requested documents indicates that consultations with other government departments and third parties will be required,” before any records can be released.

So that means that the ATI office has, in fact, found records that Paradis and Raitt say cannot be found.

Calls are in to Raitt's and Paradis' office to get clarification on this matter.

[IMPORTANT UPDATE: The department of Natural Resources has a response to this post.]

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley says her political staff approves everything government bureaucrats are allowed to say to reporters, a statement that brought charges of abuse of power from her political opponents.

Conservatives defended Finley's close scrutiny of the civil servants in her department as a “prudent” example of political oversight that helps to improve transparency and accountability.

And yet, a parliamentary committee was forced Tuesday to issue a subpoena to one Conservative aide who refused to answer MPs questions about the government's communications policies and it threatened to issue a subpoena to another aide unless that aide volunteered to testify.

…

Finley conceded that bureaucrats in her department who receive a media request must provide a copy of that request to her political aides. She told the committee that her political aides re-wrote or otherwise amended bureaucrats' responses about 20 per cent of the time.

“If this is what passes for scandal these days, I think we've come a heckuva long way since the previous government. Information was sought and, within three weeks, it was provided,” said Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre.

But Paul Dewar, an NDP MP from Ottawa, said Sparrow's action is part of a broader pattern by Conservative aides of interfering with the work of government bureaucrats.

“People in this town are worried about that. I've heard from them. Trust me,” said Dewar. “It's an abuse of political power to make sure that every single missive that goes out has the blessing of the minister's office. People shouldn't have their questions laundered by political staff.”

[Read the rest of the story]