BETWEEN: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (EAST REGION) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and? BRUCE CARSON SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PATRICK 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300 Ottawa, ON 6L5 Tel: 613 696 6906 Fax: 613 230 6423 Email: p1ncca1m@fasken.com Counsel for Bruce Carson ISSUE Bruce Carson is charged with an offence under section 121(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. It is alleged he was ?a person having or pretending to have in?uence with the Government of Canada, or with a minister or an of?cial of the Government of Canada, did directly or indirectly demand, accept, or agree to accept for himself or Michele McPherson, a reward, advantage or bene?t as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of in?uence, or acts in connection with a matter of business relating to the Government of Canada, namely Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada?. It is not disputed that Mr Carson was a person having in?uence with the Government of Canada, nor that he demanded a benefit for Michele McPherson as consideration for assistance to the company H20 Pros, a company in the business of selling point of use water puri?cation devices and which sought to sell the devices to First Nations bands. What is in issue is whether that assistance was ?in connection with a matter of business relating to the Government of Canada, namely Indian and Northern Affairs Canada as opposed to seeking information from INAC in connection with a matter of business with First Nations Bands. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE Bruce Carson?s ?rst step in assisting H20 Pros to obtain information about how to reach the First Nations market was to contact the National Chief of the AFN, Sean Atleo with whom Mr Carson had an ongoing professional and social relationship. Mr Carson arranged to meet with Chief Atleo and some of the senior of?cials of the AFN along with Patrick Hill, the principal of H20 Pros. The result of this meeting was that Mr Carson and Mr Hill were advised to contact. Gail Mitchell and Gary Best at INAC to ?nd out if funding was available for the devices H20 wanted to sell. Exhibit 3, Tab 2 Mr Carson then emailed Ms Mitchell to arrange a meeting. That meeting took place at INAC of?ces in Gatineau on September 17, 2010. Mr Carson attended the meeting with Mr Hill, Mr Kazsap and Mr McMahon from H20 Pros. Ms Mitchell and Mr Best attended on behalf of INAC. Transcript, Volume 3, page 10 1 1. Ms Mitchell and Mr Best testi?ed that requests for such meetings were common on the part of vendors seeking advice on doing business with First Nations and that she routinely meets with potential vendors to explain the process. Transcript, Volume 3, page 9; page 29; page 55 At the meeting Ms Mitchell and Mr Best made it clear that INAC was not involved in any procurement for First Nations bands. INAC provides one time funding for major infrastructure projects after they are approved, and provides a lump sum annual payment to the bands for infrastructure maintenance and minor procurement. The point of use devices being marketed by H20 Pros would be in the latter category and had been approved by INAC. Any sale of the devices, however, would have to be directly to the bands. INAC would have no involvement in it. It would be up to the bands whether or not to purchase the equipment using their own funds or the lump sum payment. Transcript, Volume 3, page 11 12, page 30 32. . At that ?rst meeting with INAC Ms Mitchell asked Mr Carson to work with her to set up a conference on issues surrounding in??astructure .This was separate from the discussions about water systems. As a result, Mr Carson and Ms Mitchell exchanged several emails in relation to this following the September meeting. Transcript, Volume 3, page 14 Subsequently, on or around September 27, Mr Carson and Mr Hill met with Gary Best and Lysane Bolduc (an expert in water puri?cation systems who had recently joined INAC) as well as several of?cials from AFN. Ms Bolduc was to report on the adequacy of H20?s product although point of use systems had already been approved according to Ms Mitchell. That meeting appeared to Ms Bolduc to be primarily a presentation of [-1203 product to the AFN people and Transcript, Volume 2, page82 83; page 92 A further meeting with Ms Mitchell, Mr Best and Ms Bolduc occurred at Mr Carson?s request on December 14, 2010. Mr Carson and Mr Hill both attended. They claimed to have obtained some band resolutions and were asking about how to proceed with the funding. Ms Mitchell again explained the funding process and that they would have to 9. 10. deal with the bands. INAC was not involved in any decision to purchase the equipment. As Ms Mitchell put it: [W]e again explained how the process for procuring services worked, and again that process involves the band coming to a decision about how they want to allocate the funds that they?ve received, and we clarified that the department didn?t actually do that procurement, so we, you know, suggested that they needed, if they wanted to sell their product to First Nations and communities, they had to enter into contracts with those. (Volume 3, p.15) Transcript, Volume 2, page 92 93 Transcript, Volume 3, page 15', page 32 Following this meeting, Mr Best and Ms Bolduc had a telephone conference with Mr Carson on February 17, 201 1 where Mr Carson explained H20 Pros had secured some band resolutions to purchase equipment and again, Mr Carson was advised of the funding mechanism. There was also some discussion about an eventual pilot project that was being considered by INAC together with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. It was still at the conception stage. H20 Pros appeared interested in it, but were told again that ultimately it would be up to the bands that participated in it whether or not to contract with any vendor. Transcript, Volume 2, pag687 89; page 94 97 Transcript, Volume 3, page 16 At no time did Mr Carson attempt to alter any government policy or obtain con?dential information. He was simply seeking information that was readily available to the public 11. on the departmental website. Mr Hill could have contacted Ms Mitchell himself and she would have met him and given him the same information. Transcript, Volume 3, page 33 34 Despite repeated requests for further information, the message that was given throughout the contacts with Mr Carson was that INAC has no involvement in the procurement of the devices H20 Pros wished to sell. It was entirely up to the bands whether they wished to purchase using either their self generated funds or the lump sum annual allotment provided by the government. The following exchange took place during the cross examination of Ms Mitchell: Q. Right, okay, and that meeting, it was for the ?rst time, I guess, made clear to them that - that I.N.A.C. does not do any procuring, and regardless of whether it?s major items, small items, pilot projects or anything else, I.N.A.C. does not do the procuring? A. That?s right. Q. And the whole process, then, was that you?re wasting your time dealing with I.N.A.C., go to the bands, talk to the bands and try to sell your equipment to them? Yeah. They have the funds to buy it, it?s up to them? That?s right. Okay. In other words, the government is hands-off on this? Well, we don?t - the government doesn?t procure. Volume 3. P. 30) Transcript, Volume 3, page 16; page 24; page 30; page 32; page 48 51, page 55 ??57 PATRICK 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300 Ottawa, ON KIP 6L5 Tel: 613 696 6906 Fax: 613 230 6423 Email: p1ncca2m@fasken.com Counsel for Bruce Carson