Evidence of meeting #23 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 snowdy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
It will be my last question after this one?
4:25 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
As I said in my opening statement, I am confident that I took her through all of the allegations, which were repeated to me by Mr. Snowdy, in our phone calls on April 9.
I'm not going to get into somebody disregarding an oath, or lying, but if somebody says that Ms. Guergis was not told by me, on April 9, of the allegations that were surfacing, the person saying that would be incorrect.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Snowdy told the committee that, in his opinion, the information he gave you did not justify Ms. Guergis being thrown out of the Conservative government and caucus.
We here in the committee are trying to get to the bottom of the situation, to understand what happened. He told us that, in his opinion, there was no evidence or information regarding Ms. Guergis's conduct.
So is she the victim of an injustice? Or is she not telling the whole story? Or, according to him, do you have other information that Mr. Snowdy revealed to you?
4:25 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I don't agree with all the propositions you built into the speech before your question, sir, but be that as it may, as I said to your colleague already, people have subjective impressions of what they may have thought they said, etc. And if Mr. Snowdy has testified that he doesn't believe he made any allegations against Ms. Guergis, that's his belief; I can only tell you what I heard from my side of the conversation.
When Mr. Snowdy made it clear to me that there was information available that Minister Guergis was assisting Mr. Jaffer to create the aura that he was connected, to advance a commercial purpose that he was pursuing, that was the information I received. And that is material, sir, not only to Ms. Guergis but obviously to Mr. Jaffer and anyone else involved in that enterprise.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do appreciate your testimony this afternoon, Mr. Hamilton. We appreciate your being here.
I may go over a few things that have been discussed already, but I think it's important that there's clarity on some of these points.
You're stating--for the record, I guess--that you did speak with Ms. Guergis about the allegations against her.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
You did: so you confirm that answer.
How long was that conversation? Can you give us some type of timeframe as to how long it was?
4:25 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
There were two conversations that day. The first one was certainly shorter than the second, and the two together lasted more than 20 minutes, in my recollection.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Can you characterize those conversations? You say that the first one was short and the second one was longer. Can you give us a general impression or some sense of the nature of those conversations?
4:25 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
The first call was placed to me by Ms. Guergis. She was clearly emotional. I believe when I answered the phone--I customarily answer “Arthur Hamilton”--without her introducing herself, I could hear she was, if not crying, very emotional: Arthur, what's going on?
I believe that is almost a direct quote.
I asked her: Where are you? What are you asking me, exactly?
She proceeded to lay out...and this is when she made the two statements: first, that she had resigned from cabinet, and second, that she was stepping away from caucus, as I explained before.
At that point, I asked her: Let me get off the line for a moment. I want to verify something, and then I'll call you back.
When I called her back, I think I got her message, or I couldn't get through, on her cellphone. I believe I sent her an e-mail. She phoned me back again.
The second phone call was longer. I took her through the allegations as Mr. Snowdy had presented them to me.
The reason that phone call took appreciably longer, obviously, is that she was interjecting at points. She kept saying, almost to every point I would lay out: That's not true. That's ridiculous. That's not true.
For context, just so the committee understands, I was speaking with Ms. Guergis the day before, on April 8, in respect of another matter. For chronology purposes, people might remember that was the day of the first story in the Toronto Star about the night of Mr. Jaffer's arrest. And even in the context of discussing things with Ms. Guergis that day, she was on the defensive--i.e., Could you believe the lies they printed in the Toronto Star?--and so on.
The second call I had with her on April 9 took that same defensive tone, as I was laying out the allegations, as did the call on April 8.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
In a 20-minute conversation, or if the two conversations were approximately 20 minutes combined, what did you speak about? That would be my first question. Did you only go over the allegations? How much detail did you lay out for her, during that period of time, about the allegations? I guess that's my question.
4:30 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I gave her the detail that I had from Mr. Snowdy, as I have described here today. The call also talked about other related items, if you want to call them that. We talked about why it was proper that she resign from cabinet.
I think this is an important point for everyone in this committee to understand. Nobody, as of April 9, as far as I'm concerned, was making an assessment that these allegations against Ms. Guergis were true. No one was dispatching them as being untruthful. It was the fact that the allegations existed. That was the reason she quite correctly resigned from cabinet and was stepping away from caucus.
We talked about her not being burdened with the responsibility she would owe to caucus members, as she had to focus her time now on defending these charges. So part of the discussion was about going forward and her sitting as an independent, and I believe it was she who identified in that call that she would be sitting as an independent.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Did Ms. Guergis say anything to you then that...? You know, after you informed her of the allegations, was there any response other than they were untrue, or...?
Can you just give us some sense as to what her reaction was? You've generalized her response, but is there something more specific that you can share with us?
4:30 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
Her reaction was emotional. Almost on every point, when I was laying out the allegations, she had a response as to the untruthfulness of that allegation.
Just so you understand, this wasn't a debate. I wasn't arguing with her. I wasn't suggesting that it was true. It was the fact that those allegations were out there.
The last thing I remember speaking with Ms. Guergis about was that one thing Mr. Snowdy had told me was that the worst was yet to come, that the first article in the Toronto Star was not the last. When I pointed out that information to Ms. Guergis, I think she understood that.... Well, I shouldn't say what she understood, but she was on notice that this wasn't going to be a one-day story. Things were going to incrementally continue to roll out.
As it happens, there is another point on which Mr. Snowdy proved prescient, because the article in the Toronto Star the next week, which connected Ms. Guergis to Mr. Jaffer's commercial enterprises, was by far a more serious situation, one that I had not heard about as of April 9.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
There's been quite a bit of talk in the media about the letter that was sent from the Prime Minister's Office to the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, at this committee as well as at the ethics committee.
Do you have anything more to add to the discussion that has been taking place in the media with regard to that letter?
4:35 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I spoke to the Ethics Commissioner's office on April 9 and followed up with a subsequent call one day the next week. I don't have it at hand, to be specific.
I am aware of the contents of the letter from Mr. Giorno based on those communications. I can say without a doubt that all the information I received from Mr. Snowdy fully supported the content of the letter that Mr. Giorno sent to the Ethics Commissioner. It is accurate, and I don't want anybody to be mistaken about that. The letter that Mr. Giorno sent is accurate and appropriate given the circumstances.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Snowdy at this committee on May 12 of this year?
4:35 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
Sorry, Madam Chair, could I just finish?
4:35 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I'm also aware that Ms. Dawson testified before the ethics committee about that letter as well, and I think it's fair to say that Ms. Dawson's recollections of the letter and the way she presented them during her testimony were by far more accurate because she had seen the letter. Mr. Snowdy, in his testimony, obviously was reporting what he had heard, but he's never seen the letter. So Ms. Dawson's testimony is by far the better guidepost for this committee.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
