OTTAWA - A giant dryer that zaps the moisture out of kitchen scraps and even human waste, and transforms it into odourless fuel, seemed like just the type of renewal energy project that Rahim Jaffer and his partner were looking to work with.
But how exactly they handled their interest in the BioDryer technology, and other green projects they were dabbling with, is at the crux of the controversy surrounding the duo's company.
Were they formally pressing the federal government about getting support for the BioDryer and other ideas, or were they simply making general inquiries about a new and complicated funding program?
A would-be business associate of Jaffer's, Nazim Gillani, will weigh in on Wednesday about what he knows about Jaffer's business and alleged lobbying.
He is expected to tell a House of Commons committee that he believed Jaffer was selling lobbying-type services through his firm, Green Power Generation, and the two were talking about getting their hands into the BioDryer.
Two important areas of the Lobbying Act are at play.
In one section, the Act says that if you communicate with public office holders about the "awarding of any grant, contribution, or other financial benefit" by the federal government, you're lobbying.
But in another area, the Act also says you're not lobbying if you're making general inquiries about the terms of conditions of programs and application processes.
According to Jaffer and partner Patrick Glemaud, they had been doing just that: sending general inquiries about the government's new Green Infrastructure Fund to different public officer holders.
When they sent a description of the BioDryer to the offices of the parliamentary secretary to Infrastructure Minister John Baird, along with two other project descriptions, they said it was simply to determine whether the technology fit within the parameters of the new green program. Once they could establish that, they would know whether the project was worth investing their time and money in.
Glemaud emphasized at the Commons government operations committee that the fund required the submission of a letter of interest before getting to the money part. Their submission described how the technology worked, how it fit into the fund's objectives, and listed an amount of $100 million as a potential federal investment.
"By no means do we ever try to secure public funding. We give the information that we gather to people we speak with, as to how they can go about doing that," Jaffer told the committee last week.
Jim Wright, the owner of the BioDryer technology and Wright Tech Systems, agreed that talks with Jaffer and Glemaud never got very far because his company couldn't seem establish a foothold in Canada, and thus wouldn't be eligible for government funding. Meanwhile, Wright has sold the BioDryer successfully in the United States and abroad.
"We had to get results before we could get grants," said Wright Tech spokesman Garth Ballantyne.
But to the opposition, and even the Conservatives themselves, the suspicions of lobbying persist.
On Friday, Environment Minister Jim Prentice forwarded information to the Commissioner of Lobbying about a meeting Jaffer had with his director of regional affairs in Calgary.
The details of that meeting have not emerged, but Jaffer had met with at least two other Conservative political staff while working for Green Power Generation.
He and Glemaud might not have been paid by any company to do government relations on their behalf, but was the contact with the government officials aimed at proving their prowess to potential clients so they could later extract funds, as some MPs have suggested?
Glemaud raised some partisan eyebrows when he told the Commons committee that the inquiries they had sent to government might have be precursors to an actual lobbying job.
"If there was an interest then there would be a request to submit a detailed business plan with all the details of the project ... and that's when lobbying will start," Glemaud told MPs. "We didn't get to that stage."
A Wright Tech spokesman also suggested there might have been a future arrangement, but again, it didn't get that far.
"If we could get the projects they could help us apply for the grants," said Ballantyne.
That did not sit well with New Democrat MP Pat Martin, who argues the two men might also be considered to have been lobbying on behalf of their own company.
He has also alleged potential influence peddling -- another charge vehemently denied by Jaffer and Glemaud.
"I mean if Mr. Jaffer was a principal in the GPG company and that company had a relationship with one of their clients or the promise of payment then surely the Lobbyist Registration Act encompasses that kind of activity," Martin said last week.
"Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. You know I would hate to think that this will slip through the cracks because we're splitting hairs."
Perhaps the greatest point going for Jaffer and Glemaud is that there is no evidence they were ever paid for lobbying by a client, or received any money from the government for any project they were associated with. Remuneration is part of the definition of a registered lobbyist.
"We maintain that GPG and its directors have not received any money from any grant, contribution, or other financial benefit, by, or on behalf of, the Government of Canada and that we have not received any compensation or payments, on behalf of any person, or organization, to undertake lobbying activities," Jaffer wrote in an email to The Canadian Press last Friday.
Still, that is unlikely to satisfy Jaffer's former colleagues on all sides of the Commons, who will continue to hammer away on the issue for the foreseeable future.
"Has the government been really covering up their involvement in terms of people gaining access to ministers' office and gaining monies or even getting turned down on monies," said Liberal MP Wayne Easter.
"Just, you know, bad lobbyists, not getting money doesn't deny the fact that there were people in fact lobbying for projects."
