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.
4:40 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
No. Again, according to the media reports, the allegation of the missing passport has surfaced more recently.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
To summarize, because I know I'm running out of time, and we have to go and vote yet again—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I wonder if we couldn't get consent from committee members to sit through part of the bells, as we did last time, to allow Mr. Martin to continue.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Do we have consent? Oui?
It is a half-hour bell, right? So we have to vote at 5:10 p.m. I think we'll be able to do it.
Mr. Martin, continue. We held your time.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Where was I? Oh, yes, the connection with Dr. Chen.
So we know that at least one of Mr. Jaffer's clients had met with Ms. Guergis. That's where the crossover may have occurred: Ms. Guergis possibly helping out Rahim Jaffer's private sector clients to advance them.
Certainly, when Rahim Jaffer can produce a cabinet minister for a business dinner, it creates the impression that he can bring the help of the government to the table. Is that the impression that you're concerned about, that Rahim Jaffer was peddling his influence with the government of the day and demonstrating that influence by producing a cabinet minister to dine with prospective clients?
4:40 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
Mr. Snowdy I think cast it correctly to me, that Mr. Jaffer was creating the aura that he was ultimately connected with the government in Canada, and part of that shtick, if I can use that word, was to point to a cabinet minister who happened to be his wife. That was Mr. Snowdy's assertion, yes.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I'm not going to get into legal characterization, but you can well appreciate, Mr. Martin, that this warranted further investigation. It was not for us to sit on this information. That would have been inappropriate.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I appreciate that you're sharing with us what you can. Speaking candidly, then, or as candidly as you can, do you think Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Gillani were being honest with this committee in their testimony?
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I haven't reviewed their testimony in detail, but it seems to me that at one point Mr. Gillani went to the trouble of impeaching Mr. Jaffer, so you probably don't need my characterization. It looks like there's a clear impeachment on the record with two partners, one turning on the other.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
June 9th, 2010 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Hamilton.
The Prime Minister and you, just now, have called the allegations serious and credible. And yet you or your clients...if you are not passing judgment, how do you explain that Ms. Guergis was thrown out of caucus? How does that fit into it? If you believe that the allegations were credible and serious, and at the same time you say that, you know, you're not passing judgment, how does that fit?
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
Again, I'm not certain that she was, to use your phrase, “thrown out of caucus”. I explained to you the way Ms. Guergis explained it to me, and it was an ambiguous statement. I've never traced that down to see which way the ambiguity is resolved.
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
She said she was stepping away from caucus. That could have been her decision or it could have been somebody else's decision.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Okay: so you are not aware of how this went.
You mentioned in your statement that Ms. Guergis assisted and amplified Mr. Jaffer's apparent influence peddling. How did she do it?
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
That was the allegation by Mr. Snowdy, yes, and it would seem that attending business dinners, on its face, could give rise to that type of assertion.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
But she's the one who actually brought it to your attention, that she had attended this one dinner with Dr. Chen.
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
She brought it to my attention, but in making the statement she did, she made an inconsistent statement from a previous statement she had made to me.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
The previous statement was that she had only had one business dinner, ever, with Rahim; that was the way she put it.
I had assumed that this was the Dr. Chen dinner. As it happens, we now know, and it's verified, that she attended at least one other function with Mr. Jaffer at Sassafraz during the Toronto International Film Festival.
So there is an inconsistency there.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
That has been described by one of the witnesses as a social evening and not necessarily a business one. But okay--
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
--finding the facts, but when, as a lawyer, somebody makes an inconsistent statement such as that.... There are a number of reasons why somebody would be making an inconsistent statement. Some of them are quite innocent. Some are not so innocent. It's not for me to make that determination and decide what we do with it.
The inconsistency stands, and it's troubling.