Evidence of meeting #17 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 gillani.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I call the meeting to order.
Could the media please leave the room? The committee is ready to start its business.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
We have the witness before us. We have seen your motion. It has been passed through committee, and we'll be discussing it in the last 15 minutes.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
As I have the floor, I believe I have support to deal with this right now.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
This is an order of the committee, and I'd like to follow the order of the committee.
We have a witness before us. To the witness I will say that I know that you've brought in your legal counsel. Parliamentary privilege rules on the rights and duties of witnesses say:
Witnesses giving testimony who wish to be assisted by counsel must ask leave of the committee, although permission is seldom sought. Counsel is restricted to an advisory role and may not ask questions or reply on the witness' behalf.
I would like to seek the committee's permission for legal counsel to stay. Is the committee in agreement that we can let Mr. Groot stay?
3:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Agreed.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I, Derrick Snowdy, do swear the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, sir.
The orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 108(3)(c), are the study of renewable energy projects funded by the government.
Mr. Snowdy, do you have a statement that you would like to make for five minutes?
3:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Madam Chair, members of the committee, unaccustomed as I am to be present in front of a parliamentary committee, forgive me for taking a few moments to make a statement, and perhaps, through you, I may be offered a bit of latitude.
I've worked in the private security investigation industry for 20 years. I've worked with clients in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central America. I've held investigative licences across Canada, with the exception of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
I believe the reason I've been summoned here today before this committee is to offer insight into the media frenzy surrounding a former cabinet minister and current member of Parliament.
My role to many of you in this room may be confusing and misunderstood because of what I do. I believe I speak for all of my clients in the insurance industry, the banking sector, and government who choose to remain anonymous because they, like me, believe that neglect is the ally of many. It is because of neglect that investigators are retained. The job of investigators, if you will, is to dig into people's activities and statements. Your role too is to examine the issue before you.
The notion that neglect is an ally is a strong statement. It presupposes that, as normal everyday respectful citizens, we take what people say as the truth. In fact, one can make the absolute leap that what generally happens in this place is built upon that premise.
Most importantly, Madam Chair, neglect is not the purview of this place. It is all around us and in our everyday lives, and neglect as an ally is the reason clients seek my counsel and professional skills as an investigator in the first place.
When the facts I uncovered as an investigator regarding the proponents of this committee's mandate came to light, I sought the advice of friends who understood far better than I how things here in Ottawa work. I agreed to meet the client's wishes and contact individuals in public office, be they functionaries to politicians or politicians themselves. When I brought to light the issues that appeared to affect the government, I advised the government.
The reaction of the government, albeit a part of the mandate of this committee, has nothing to do with me. It appears, however, I am an unwilling participant in this little drama.
I'm here, Madam Chair, because your committee believes I can shed some light on this matter. I hope that my presence here can help clear up some of the misconceptions about this matter, and that I can move on as an investigator in my professional life.
Madam Chair, through you to the committee members, I humbly submit that this matter has been, and is, a tough issue to manage through for the individuals who are at the centre of it. Many people have made assumptions about the evidence and information I collected during the case, and many people have made assumptions about the investigation as a result of media spin. I appear before you today to speak to the facts and connect the dots, as I did with the clients and victims during the investigative process.
Many friends with whom I have spoken have felt there is far too much being made of this issue in the first place, when it appears to have effectively been dealt with by the Prime Minister.
I hope and trust my presence here today will serve to offer a perspective and close this chapter, and that we don't neglect those other important matters that we look to you to manage.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, Mr. Snowdy.
We'll go to the first round of questions. First is Ms. Siobhan Coady, for eight minutes.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate your being here today. As you said, this is about getting to the truth and speaking to the facts, so I'm glad you made that as a point in your opening statements, and we'll certainly get to that.
I just want to ask a couple of questions to begin. You had information that you felt was significant enough to bring to the attention of the Conservative lawyer Arthur Hamilton, I believe his name was. What information exactly did you bring to Mr. Hamilton's attention?
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I think there's a little bit of a leap in that question. If I may, maybe I can go back to you with this.
The information that I had and the direction that I went with it was after consultation and receiving direction from the client. I didn't make the emails or the telephone calls on my own initiative. They were a result of the spiralling situation that seemed to appear on the morning of April 8. You can well imagine that a number of my clients woke up to the Toronto Star on Thursday, April 8, and pretty soon afterwards my BlackBerry became fairly active.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
There was a lot of discussion, and it went on for a few hours.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Okay. Then you went to see.... You made a call. I think this is all on the public record. You made a call, and eventually you had a call back from the lawyer named Arthur Hamilton.
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I sent out some emails at around 12:30 in the afternoon. I sent one to my member's assistant and I sent one to an executive in my riding association after I had received the direction from my client to disclose certain facts.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Okay, great.
I'm sorry, but we only have eight minutes, so I'm going to be a little pressed for time. What information did you bring to Mr. Hamilton?
3:35 p.m.
As an Individual
We're not going to squeeze that into eight minutes. I had an hour-long conversation with him on the phone. When I did return his call, it was 11 o'clock at night, and he had been trying to get hold of me for many hours.
