FORMER MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT’S BUSINESS CARD

A.  Initial Testimony

At the April 21, 2010 hearings of the Committee, a Committee member asked a question about the veracity of the allegation that Rahim Jaffer used his former Member of Parliament’s business card when he was no longer a Member of Parliament. Rahim Jaffer responded that he had never distributed his former Member of Parliament’s business card after ceasing to be a Member of Parliament.[1]

Pat Martin (Winnipeg-Centre, NDP):

Have you ever circulated your MP’s business card after you ceased to be an MP?

Rahim Jaffer (Green Power Generation Corporation, GPG):

I don’t even understand what good that would provide. It would …

Pat Martin:

It would only imply that you still have some sort of relationship to Parliament, even though you’re no longer a member of Parliament.

Rahim Jaffer:

As I said, I’ll go back to my opening statement, because I think it’s clear that …

Pat Martin:

Can you answer that question first?

Rahim Jaffer:

I told you I never did those things. These are allegations. I never would make unsubstantiated claims that I couldn’t follow through.

(i)  Contradiction 1

When he appeared before the Committee on April 28, 2010, Nazim Gillani contradicted Rahim Jaffer’s testimony, stating that on August 25, 2009 he saw Rahim Jaffer give his former Member of Parliament’s business card to at least one person at La Castile restaurant.[2]

Ed Holder (London West, CPC):

If I may, Chair, I have two fast questions. First of all, I was thinking about the comment you made about Mr. Jaffer passing out his business cards, and he didn’t have his current one, so he took out his old card that he had—and I suppose that can happen—and he crossed out information. I was imagining that if I took out my member of Parliament card, took off “House of Commons”—that doesn’t apply—and “London West”—that doesn’t apply—and my justice building address, and my residence address, so I’m kind of stuck with my name, what’s the purpose of the business card?

Nazim Gillani (Chief Executive Officer, International Strategic Investments):

I don’t know what to say to you. I just saw him do this, and he wrote down another number, and I walked out. That was one person. There were other people at that table, so I don’t know whether other people got the card or not. At the close of the meeting, I saw him do that with one person. I got up to go out and have a cigarette.

(ii)  Contradiction 2

When he appeared before the Committee on May 26, 2010, Ian Harvey contradicted Rahim Jaffer’s testimony, stating that on August 25, 2009 Rahim Jaffer gave him his former Member of Parliament’s business card at La Castile restaurant.[3]

Ian Harvey (as an individual):

On August 25, 2009, I was invited to attend an afternoon meeting by Nazim Gillani at La Castile restaurant in Mississauga. I was introduced to Rahim Jaffer, and he provided me with his business card, a copy of which I’m going to submit to the committee as exhibit 1.

INTERNET SITE CONTENT

A.  Initial Testimony

At the April 21, 2010 hearings, a Committee member asked a question about the veracity of the allegations that Rahim Jaffer stated on his Internet site that he was able to obtain support from the Canadian government.[4] Rahim Jaffer stated before the Committee that his Internet site did not contain such a statement.

Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Just so that I’m completely clear, I haven’t seen it, but it was reported that on your website at one point it said that you would be able to secure support from the Canadian government.

Rahim Jaffer:

I don’t even recall that that was what it said, and …

Chris Warkentin:

I haven’t seen that, but I…

Rahim Jaffer:

[...] We would have never put that in there because that’s not the nature of our business. So I would even say that those particular reports are inaccurate.

(i)  Contradiction 1

When he appeared before the Committee on April 21, 2010, Rahim Jaffer first denied that he had stated on his personal Internet site that he was able to obtain assistance from the Canadian government, and then contradicted his own testimony by admitting that this statement did appear on his personal Internet site.[5]

Chris Warkentin:

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.

Rahim Jaffer:

May I respond, Mr. Warkentin?

As I mentioned to you, and I’m glad you’re clarifying this, we were discussing my business website earlier and I told you that on that website there is no reference to securing any sort of government support—on our business website. Now, there was some sort of reference to that on my personal website.

BUSINESS RELATIONS BETWEEN RAHIM JAFFER AND NAZIM GILLANI

A. Initial Testimony

At the April 21, 2010 hearings, Rahim Jaffer denied that there were business relations between his business, GPG, and International Strategic Investments, directed by Nazim Gillani.[6]

Rahim Jaffer:

So you know the process you have to go through to explore who you may want to work with, what sorts of relationships you’re going to build, or what focus your business is going to have. Over the course of the last year, Mr. Glémaud and I have met different people and have taken the time to explore whether or not there are synergies with their companies. Mr. Gallani [sic.] was one of those, but we realized very quickly after a few meetings with him that our firms were very divergent and that we had no real synergies whereby we could develop a relationship, so that exploration ended at that stage. Unfortunately, as a result, we’ve still been pulled into something in which we don’t even know Mr. Gallani’s [sic.] business and his dealings that are out there.

(i)  Contradiction 1

When he appeared before the Committee on April 28, 2010, Nazim Gillani contradicted Rahim Jaffer’s testimony, stating that on September 21, 2009 he had signed a contract for services with GPG, a business directed by Rahim Jaffer and Patrick Glémaud.

Nazim Gillani:

We first met in August 2009, and I have met Mr. Jaffer on six other occasions since then. I have provided you in advance with relevant documents, which I believe you already have. The services offered by GPG, listed on both the GPG website and Mr. Jaffer’s personal website, were what my company, ISI, was interested in. GPG formalized the provision of those services in a contract with my company. On page 2 of that contract, which was revised by Mr. Glémaud and signed by him, dated September 21, 2009, it states that the “Consultant,” that being GPG: “warrants and represents that it is in ongoing dialogue with, and has valuable connections to and with, the government of Canada and various departments, ministries, and wholly or partially owned entities thereof, all for the purposes of providing participatory and non-participatory government funding (and other incentives) as well as ongoing support for various prospective private sector projects, ventures and initiatives …”[7]

(ii)  Contradiction 2

When he appeared before the Committee on April 28, 2010, Nazim Gillani contradicted Rahim Jaffer’s testimony, stating that he and Rahim Jaffer were to travel to China together on April 13, 2010.[8]

Nazim Gillani:

Further, Mr. Jaffer and I were to travel to China together on April 13, 2010, yet Mr. Jaffer seemed to state to this committee last week that he ended our relationship months ago. This was untrue.

SUBJECTS RAISED DURING DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN RAHIM JAFFER AND HIS FORMER COLLEAGUES

A.  Initial Testimony

At the April 21, 2010 hearings, a Committee member questioned Rahim Jaffer about the subjects he raised during discussions he had with his former colleagues. Rahim Jaffer stated before the Committee that he had never discussed business projects with his former colleagues.[9]

Siobhan Coady (St. John’s-South–Mount Pearl, Lib.):

Thank you. Now, we know that you spoke with Brian Jean, who’s the parliamentary secretary to Minister Baird, who’s responsible for infrastructure, in particular for a billion dollars of the green fund. We know that you spoke with Minister Prentice, the Minister of the Environment. And we know that you had dinner with Mr. Baird; that has been established. Mr. Jaffer, have you spoken with any other members of the Conservative caucus or senior government officials on any business projects in which you have a direct or indirect financial interest?

Rahim Jaffer:

I would like to clarify, because it’s—

Siobhan Coady:

Please do.

Rahim Jaffer:

You’re suggesting that I may have discussed business with the particular members you identified in your question. As I mentioned in my statement, most of my interactions with any of my former colleagues have always been social. I’ve never discussed any business, never even asked them for anything, other than to give them an update on what I’ve been working on.

(i)  Contradiction 1

When he appeared before the Committee on June 2, 2010, the Honourable Christian Paradis contradicted Rahim Jaffer’s testimony, stating that Rahim Jaffer called him on August 27, 2009 to discuss an innovative idea about solar panels.[10]

Siobhan Coady:

Thank you. I guess that’s a yes, Mr. Paradis. I have another question. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Paradis, on August 27, Rahim Jaffer wrote to your staff, the director of parliamentary affairs, Sébastien Togneri—who was supposed to appear today—and this was in the e-mail: “I just spoke with Christian and we are going to try and get together for beers next week,” and “He also suggested that I coordinate with you the chance to find someone like the deputy minister to speak with” about a proposal. Did you personally order that his proposal be fast-tracked? Just a simple yes or no.

Hon. Christian Paradis:

Mr. Jaffer did in fact call me to say that he had an innovative idea about solar panels or some such thing. I told him to contact my office to set up a meeting with officials to see if his ideas held any interest, making it clear that—

Siobhan Coady:

So I guess your answer is yes.

Hon. Christian Paradis:

[…] if anything came of the meeting, there would be a competitive process, or a call for bids. That was made clear from the outset.

The inconsistencies noted in Rahim Jaffer’s testimony are of concern to the Committee as they appear to undermine two fundamental privileges of the House and MPs: freedom of speech and the right to conduct inquiries, require witnesses to appear and order the production of documents.

MPs enjoy freedom of speech during parliamentary proceedings, which permits them to debate with immunity from prosecution or civil action. This right is also extended to witnesses appearing before House committees to ensure that the committees can gather candid, truthful and complete evidence. For a witness to lie or deliberately mislead a committee is a misuse of this freedom of speech and is unacceptable.

If a witness gives testimony without the expected truthfulness, this considerably undermines the investigative powers of parliamentary committees and their ability to carry out their work.

The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice says on page 95 that “If a committee determines that a witness has given untruthful testimony, it may report the matter to the House” and that “The House alone is responsible for deciding if the witness has deliberately misled the committee and is in contempt of the House as well as for determining the appropriate punitive action.”

The Committee wishes therefore to draw to the attention of the House what appears to be a violation of its privileges and/or a potential instance of contempt of Parliament, and recommends that it take whatever measures it considers appropriate.