Evidence of meeting #13 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
No. I can't answer for my partners, and I don't see how, Chairman, this line of questioning has any relevance to GPG, Rahim Jaffer, and the events that we're talking about.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I just want to intervene to remind committee members of two things.
One is to remember that we want to keep on the issue that we're discussing, so relevance is the first point. But I would also remind committee members that, as members of Parliament, we do adhere to the sub judice convention, which requires us, if in fact there are other court proceedings or other proceedings.... I'm unaware of it, but if you, as a witness, are not comfortable, or if you feel that we're not abiding by the convention, please--
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
I was advised by counsel that you would adhere to that before I even got here: that ministers of Parliament would not be questioning me about anything to do with a matter that is in front of the criminal courts and--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That is correct, so if we're going into that territory, we as committee members want to refrain from doing that.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, I thank you for those clarifications and I hope that they are not taken from my time.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Very well.
You said that there are legal proceedings at this time relating to what happened in British Columbia. Therefore, the matter is before the courts. Thank you.
Furthermore, we have heard that you would have claimed to be a banker for the Hells Angels. Is there any truth to that?
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
I thought I addressed that in my initial statement, sir.
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
I said that I have never said that.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I want to come back to your e-mail of Friday, September 11. I shall read it to you. My Liberal colleague has read the end of the paragraph but I will read it at length. Here are your words:
As most of you may have heard, we had a rather earth moving experience last night at dinner with Rahim Jaffer and Dr. Chen. Mr. Jaffer has opened up the Prime Minister's office to us and as a result of that dinner - he today advised me that he is just as excited as we are and joining our team seems to be the next logical step. Dr. Chen also was thoroughly impressed with the level of commitment from Rahim and the strength with which it was made.
That is what you said in your e-mail. What did you mean by “commitment”? You wrote that Mr. Jaffer had committed to open the Prime Minister's office to you.
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
Sir, strength of the commitment to the group, to this new partnership: that's what it meant.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Yes, but what did you mean by the sentence you wrote? You are the one who wrote it, not me. “Mr. Jaffer has opened up the Prime Minister's office to us”. What does that mean?
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
I've said that was an overenthusiastic statement. I regret it deeply, but I said it. It's my fault, my words. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this over and over again--
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
So it has nothing to do with Mr. Jaffer. These are my words. I said it. So if anybody needs to be punished for what I said, then that's me, and I'm taking responsibility.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
This is not a matter of punishment. You talked of an earth moving experience. Considering the sentence you wrote, there was certainly some discussion on opening the doors to the Prime Minister's office.
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments
If I asked one person what an “earth moving experience” was and then I asked another one, do you agree with me that there would be two different experiences described?
Just because you read into it that an “earth moving experience” means this, I disagree with you, and I respectfully tell you that's not the case. I said these words. They're my fault. I'm taking responsibility for them. I don't know what else I can do.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Guimond.
We're going to turn it over to Mr. Bruinooge for five minutes.
April 28th, 2010 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to some of your comments in relation to the Federal Accountability Act and not understanding or appreciating the laws in relation to business owners in Canada and how they may interact with government or members of Parliament, ministers, etc.
You've indicated you didn't have too much knowledge on this matter. I got into politics in part because of some of the things that have occurred in recent years in relation to lobbying, and some of the unfortunate circumstances that have come about. You don't seem to be aware of some of these details, but in recent years, going back to the early part of the last decade, there were a number of individuals who unfortunately engaged in some very illegal lobbying.
I'm not sure if you've heard of these individuals: Jacques Corriveau and Chuck Guité. These individuals were in positions that enabled them to receive illegal amounts of dollars for various projects that government became implicated in.
As a government, we brought about an Accountability Act to attempt to thwart that, because it's so important for this institution to maintain the integrity of government and the way Canadians perceive their government operating, and I know that everybody on that side of the table agrees.
I think it's safe to say that in the event that you were engaging with individuals who had access to that type of illicit dollars, you would have walked away with dollars for your company, but you didn't get any money from Mr. Jaffer.