The Lobbying Activities of Neelam J. Makhija on Behalf of Intrinsyc Software, Inc.

Findings

In the fall of 2000, Mr. Makhija was in contact with a number of companies in British Columbia to determine if there was a match between their investment needs and the repayable contribution arrangements that might be available through TPC. Intrinsyc, which was seeking investment funding for a project that involved the advanced technology in which they specialized, was among these companies. We have no evidence that Mr. Makhija was in a contractual relationship with Intrinsyc at this time.

Mr. Makhija arranged a series of meetings to be held in Vancouver in December 2000 between several local companies including Intrinsyc, and federal government employees involved in the TPC funding process. Mr. Makhija wrote to a TPC investment officer (investment officer) in November 2000 indicating the scheduled date and time of the meeting between TPC and Intrinsyc in December and showing those times during the trip that were still open. He also provided the investment officer with Intrinsyc's address and phone number, as well as the name of its CEO. The meeting took place in December as scheduled, attended by an investment officer and a Program Manager from CRC.

Intrinsyc submitted its investment outline to TPC in January 2001. At that time, Mr. Makhija was assisting a number of companies and these companies as well were submitting investment outlines to TPC. These outlines were to be considered at a TPC priorization meeting in February 2001. In January, Mr. Makhija wrote an email to the President of one of the other companies regarding the status of the various projects with which Mr Makhija was assisting, including Intrinsyc's project. In that email he summarized the meeting with the TPC officer and added:

"[The public office holders] assure me that my projects will be supported by them…. Any way this priortizing exercise will result in selection of half of my projects. We discussed on steps to take to fund the rest. Our aim is to fund all. … I will encourage the companies to develop and submit a full proposal (with … [the investment officer's] blessings)…. Political process from top down can also be initiated, if required. … For now, I am personally acquainting my associates with the merits of the projects and checking their receptivity. If they have questions, I'll try to answer or connect them to the companies directly."

In February 2001, TPC held a priorization meeting. Intrinsyc was not selected for funding at the February 2001 meeting but remained in consideration for future funding.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NJM Initiatives Inc. and Intrinsyc was signed by Mr. Makhija on March 26, 2001. The preamble states that NJM had been retained to assist in a planning process "with the objective of qualifying for and securing of financial support from government agencies". In this document, NJM undertakes to provide a range of professional services, including:

• Initial review of project feasibility.
• Joint review of corporate R&D strategic planning, assessment of strengths, future growth capability and directions, current business plan, to determine project scope.
• Identification and determination of project qualification criteria for potential funding and sources; project formulation strategy.
• Compilation of material supplied by the company and other sources; proposal preparation, initial presentation, submission, discussion and defence.

For these services, the company agreed to pay an amount on signing, and on approval of the government's financial contribution to the project, a professional fee calculated at a stated percentage of the total amount of the financial contribution. This type of arrangement is often called a "success fee" or contingency fee. The LRA requires that consultant lobbyists who are paid in this way disclose that fact as part of their registration.

Mr. Makhija arranged a series of meetings for May 2001 inVancouver, between a number of companies, including Intrinsyc, and the investment officer and another Industry Canada employee. On April 12, 2001, Mr. Makhija wrote the investment officer that the Vancouver trip schedule was going well and that most slots were booked. A few days later, he provided the investment officer with a list of websites, including Intrinsyc's, and commented, "this is how the visits are shaping up. More when we meet later this week."

Mr. Makhija was involved in arranging another meeting, also in May 2001, between Intrinsyc and the Executive Director of TPC. On May 18, 2001, Mr. Makhija wrote to an investment officer asking for the time of the proposed meeting on May 29, so he could tell Intrinsyc, and for a suggestion regarding the meeting format. The investment officer provided Mr. Makhija with the Executive Director's availability on May 29 and inquired as to the company's preference. Mr. Makhija wrote back to indicate that he would check with the company regarding May 29 and to add that Intrinsyc suggested an evening meeting on May 28. On May 24, the investment officer replied to Mr. Makhija that an evening meeting was acceptable to the Executive Director and the officer asked Mr. Makhija for the time, place, and guest list. As well, the investment officer asked Mr. Makhija to provide an indication of what Intrinsyc wished to discuss and what type of response the company expected.

TPC and Intrinsyc entered into a repayable contribution agreement dated August 9, 2002. The maximum funding to Intrinsyc was set at $6,636,271.

Intrinsyc paid NJM $2000 on signing the MOU of March 26, 2001. Further payments totalling $393,367.93 were made to Mr. Makhija during 2003.

According to Intrinsyc's 2004 Annual Report, Industry Canada found Intrinsyc in breach of its funding agreement due to improper use of an outside consultant and, as a result, the company was required to make financial restitution to the government.

In the period from October 2000 to November 2003, there was no registration of either Neelam Makhija or NJM Initiatives in the Registry of Lobbyists.