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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Did you tell Ms. Guergis only what Mr. Snowdy said, or did you tell her about the other sources that had been providing you with information?
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
In terms of the allegations, I only spoke to what Mr. Snowdy had told me. We did, in the context of the second and longer conversation on the morning of April 9, talk about the mounting pressure that was on her.
Remember the backdrop against which that week comes to us. She was under siege literally every day that week for something. You may recall that she was being hit by press stories that she was trying to get expenses, for jogging outfits or what have you, into her campaign budget. Frankly, it was your party that attacked her and Mr. Jaffer on the mortgage they had secured for their property.
So we were talking about other sources of pressure, but in terms of the allegations, it was Mr. Snowdy's allegations that I was reporting to her.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much.
I just want some clarification. On April 8 you spoke on the phone to Mr. Snowdy. You said it was new information. On April 9 Madam Guergis resigned, or was removed, from cabinet. You had several other meetings with Mr. Snowdy.
You also said that you took her through the allegation that was presented by Mr. Snowdy, yet in earlier testimony you said there were other sources of information.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
That's an inconsistency, to me. I'd like for you to help me with that inconsistency, if you would, please.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Okay. So you're telling me that we had new information on the 8th, 9th, and the next day Madam Guergis resigned. The letter to the Ethics Commissioner talks about Mr. Snowdy as being the only source of the information, yet you're saying there are other sources of information.
I think that's an inconsistency.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
June 9th, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Hamilton.
The purpose of this entire study is to determine whether Mr. Jaffer, among others, engaged in lobbying. It centres around that.
Based on the allegations that you received, in all the cases that you have handled regarding this matter, which is quite unfortunate.... In your opinion, was Mr. Jaffer lobbying with respect to companies in order to obtain information that could benefit those companies?
4:50 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
It would seem that the only thing Mr. Jaffer brought to the table was his supposed access.
Appreciate the scheme that was laid out to me by Mr. Snowdy. Mr. Gillani and Mr. Jaffer are holding themselves out as venture capitalists, and they are charging people venture capital fees.
I see Mr. Martin nodding his head.
The one thing that was missing was that they didn't have any venture capital.
4:50 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
So the whole thing would collapse under its own weight. Why would you pay somebody a fee to access their funds when they don't have any funds? What they were effectively paying a fee for was, “Now Mr. Jaffer is going to open up government to me and I'll get the funds from government”? Why would you pay Mr. Jaffer for that service? You could go anywhere and achieve the same result.
So, quite frankly, as Mr. Snowdy was outlining, this whole part of the scheme--speaking as somebody who practises in this area, in the regulatory and security litigations area--was just pure nonsense, on its face, if that's what Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Gillani were presenting to people.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Jaffer still gave presentations: he sent a certain number of emails to—if I am not mistaken—seven departments, or at least people in this government in public office, to gather information, according to Mr. Glémaud and Mr. Jaffer.
Given what you have just told us about the partnership between Mr. Gillani and Mr. Jaffer, I want to ask you this: Did Mr. Jaffer's practices lead Ms. Guergis—in an incriminating, naive or other manner—down a path that was, at the very least, unfortunate for her, in terms of her position as a minister?
4:50 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I'm not able to characterize his conduct as criminal or naive or what have you. I'd simply repeat my last answer: anyone holding themselves out as a venture capitalist when they have no venture capital in back of them--that's highly questionable conduct.
I hope no one in this room would disagree with that.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Was there a point to your meetings and discussions with Mr. Snowdy? There must have been an interest on your end, since you listened to him, and Mr. Snowdy wanted to meet with you, as well. There was a purpose behind all that.
Was it to learn more about Ms. Guergis's conduct as a minister?
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I don't believe he was coming to me to learn any information from me. I was getting information from him.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
No, but you, you were getting information. What interested you in that information? Was it the minister's conduct?
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I wanted to learn all the facts that surrounded anything that might impact upon Ms. Guergis, yes.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
According to Mr. Snowdy, you said that the former minister had been monitored for 18 months. So since November 2008, roughly. Could you elaborate on that for us?
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
I don't believe I gave him that timeframe. He was asking questions to the effect of why certain things had not been done about demoting her, etc., earlier. I certainly was not in a position to answer those questions. That's not a decision the legal counsel of my client would presume to make.
4:55 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
So I simply couldn't answer him on any suggestions or any questions he had in that vein.
