Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Jaffer, not even an hour ago, I asked you specifically if it stated on your website that you would be able to secure support from the Canadian government. You said that it didn't. You made it absolutely clear. I don't think there's anybody in this room who heard it differently.
I have a copy now. I looked, actually.... When the news report came out, your website had come down. There was no cache of it. I hadn't been able to see it, so I was relying on news reports. You denied that those news reports were accurate.
I now have in my hand the biography, I guess from rahimjaffer.com, which states exactly that. It also goes on to talk about the important role that your former relationships, or the relationships you developed over your career as a politician, might avail you in terms of assisting in your current career.
I don't know why you would deny it if in fact it had been there. Clearly it was there when the reporter wrote the story, and then it subsequently went down. You must have been aware that there was something within that website that was untoward or not correct, or that at least appeared to be unethical.
Considering this, I don't even know what question I have. I mean, the evidence is before me. The statement is obviously untrue--at least it could imply unethical behaviour. What bothers me more is that we have you before our committee and you've stated, as a matter of fact, one thing and I now have a copy that indicates something different.
We all entered politics to do something good for Canadians. I don't doubt that this was your intention, Mr. Jaffer, but you have to understand that this type of behaviour sullies all of our names.