Here's the rush transcript of a key moment in the two-hour testimony of Derrick Snowdy, private investigator, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. (Note: Snowdy insisted on being sworn in before his testimony):
Alexendra Mendes (LPC, Brossard-La Prairie): I would like to ask you about your communications with the ethics commissioner. Who initiated those communications or those contacts?
Derrick Snowdy: I received a phone call at two o'clock in the afternoon on April 9th from —
Mendes: The same day you spoke with [Conservative Party of Canada] Mr. [Arthur] Hamilton the first time?
Snowdy: That's correct. I was actually — I actually broke a tooth the night of April 8th grinding my teeth watching the news. I got a phone call at two in the afternoon of the 9th from a man who identified himself as Mr. Eppo Maertens. He provided me with his name and telephone number. I was going into the dentist to have my tooth repaired and I told him I would phone him back. I made some preliminary inquiries. I tasked one of my assistants to find out who Mr. Maertens was and I was out of the dental chair at 3:30. I received a report back as to Mr. Maertens was and the fact that he was an employee of the ethics commissioner's office. And at four in afternoon I returned Mr. Maerten's phone call.
Mendes: And what was the theme of your discussions?
Snowdy: Mr. Maertens said to me that he had received a leter from Mr. Guy Giorno in the prime minister's office in which the letter indicated that I had made specific alegations and claims against a member of Parliament. I asked him if he would read me the letter. He put me on hold for minute and a half, came back and read to me a letter that said my name in it several times. It said Derrick Snowdy says this, Derrick Snowdy says that about the conduct of the minister. And I said no. I did not say that. No, sir I did not say that.
Mendes: Are you implying he lied?
Snowdy: Pardon me?
Mendes: Are you implying he lied?
Snowdy: Who lied, ma'am.
Mendes: Giorno. Who wrote the letter.
Snowdy: I've never seen the letter, ma'am. Mr. Maertens told me he had a letter from Mr. Giorno. That's what the letter stated. I said no, in fact I'd never spoken to Mr. Giorno. At that point in time Mr. Maertens said to me: well, it appears I don't have a complaint here. Thank you very much. Good-bye.
Mendes: And you've never had —
Snowdy: The entire conversation lasted a grand total of eight minutes and 35 seconds. I was on hold for a minute and a half of that. And when I got of the phone, I had a rather agitated phone call to [Conservative Party lawyer] Arthur Hamilton.
Mendes: You called him. And what was said in that conversation?
Snowdy: there were a number of profanities, and expressing —
Mendes: By whom to whom?
Snowdy: From me to Mr. Hamilton. I was not very happy with the characterization of that conversation and that context. and Mr. Hamilton was sympathetic to my call.
Here's our full story coming out of Snowdy's testimony:
Private investigator Derrick Snowdy said the Prime Minister's Office misrepresented allegations Snowdy made about the conduct of fired minister Helena Guergis and her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, in a letter the PMO sent to Parliament's ethics commissioner.
Canwest News Service has learned that Snowdy was the sole source of allegations that prompted Harper, on April 9, to fire Guergis from cabinet, kick her out of the Conservative caucus and call in the RCMP and the ethics commissioner to investigate Guergis' conduct.
A senior government official, however, says the prime minister was moved to fire Guergis for reasons beyond the informations Snowdy provided.
“Snowdy was the straw that broke the camel's back,” the official said.
In a remarkable moment during two hours of testimony Wednesday at the House of Commons government operations and estimates committee, Snowdy said the information the Prime Minister's Office passed on to the ethics commissioner was not an accurate reflection of the information that he gave Harper's closest advisers hours before Harper asked for and received Guergis' resignation.
I think there was an even more telling exchange between Conservative Patrick Brown and Derrick Snowdy towards the latter part of the meeting.
Brown: “Why do you think some people are trying to inflate the claims that Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Gillani have allegedly made?”
Snowdy: “I’ve sort of given up trying to think of how you people operate up here. You know, obviously, it becomes a sensationalistic endeavour, how can we paint the angle on this to whatever sort of advantage it suits whomever at the time. It’s, a classic example is, you know, obviously the last couple of months people screaming for Ms. Guergis’s termination and this week it’s a love-in, so, you know, take your pick”.
To me that sounds like an indictment of the opposition parties' tactics as well as the media coverage.
Gabby, please take your rose coloured glasses off. Harper fired Guergis and now the gumshoe is saying harper overreacted………..pretty poor judgement by the PM as is usual for him.
Also, it's pretty clear to me that the opposition wanted her out of cabinet because she had a questionable temper and probably shortcomings as a minister. They didn't necessarily want her out of caucus, and certainly not based on the “serious allegations” made by a PI who writes lies on his facebook page so that people won't think he's credible…
Kind of a big difference here…
“Private investigator Derrick Snowdy said the Prime Minister's Office misrepresented allegations Snowdy made about the conduct of fired minister Helena Guergis and her husband…
Canwest News Service has learned that Snowdy was the sole source of allegations …”
Perhaps I tend to take things too literally, but I disagree “Snowdy said the Prime Minister's Office misrepresented allegations …”
Yes, Snowdy was po'd by what was read to him from the letter written by Guy Giorno and sent to the Ethics Commissioner for investigation.
But let's remember … who transmitted to the PMO whatever concerns Snowdy raised?
Conservative lawyer Arthur Hamilton is the one who transmitted those concerns relayed to him by Snowdy.
I am not implying Mr. Hamilton exaggerated anything, but it is a reality that any story changes in the re-telling.
Also, throw in the mix the initial Kevin Donovan story about “busty hookers” and you have the makings of a three-alarm situation.
So, no, I'm not convinced by your statement that “Snowdy said the Prime Minister's Office misrepresented allegations …”
Also, consider this exchange between Snowdy and NDPer Pat Martin:
Pat Martin: “Why do you think the Prime Minister acted so swiftly to fire Helena Guergis?”
Snowdy: “Do you want me to speculate?”
P. Martin: “Yeah”.
Snowdy: “You know, the same reason we [Arthur Hamilton and Snowdy] had some concern, and the concern here is optics. …”
So, some serious concerns were raised after the Donovan story (April 8) and lawyer Hamilton's report to the PMO, resulting in the PM's referring the matter to the proper authorities for investigation.
Why should anyone now be surprised that the PMO acted to protect its reputation — not by simply denying the allegations, but by calling for an investigation?
“… she had a questionable temper and probably shortcomings as a minister …”
Don't tell me you doubt the word of the CBC's Peter Mansbridge.
In his interview with Ms. Guergis, Mansbridge said he viewed the video of the airport incident — a video comprised of takes from FIVE different angles — and he said there was nothing that he could determine was tantamount to the kind of “obscenity-laced tantrum” described in the press, which was then repeated over and over again by Wayne Easter and Anita Neville in what I consider their hyena-like behaviour during many QP sessions.
The fact is the press FAILED miserably when it came to that airport incident. Why was there no attempt to identify the anonymous letter writer who sent his complaint to Liberal MP Wayne Easter and to the media rather than to Transport Canada, where such a complaint, if founded, truly belonged?
Why did the press continue to portray Ms. Guergis as “throwing” or “hurling” her footwear, despite the fact it was repeatedly pointed out that the anonymous letter writer described it as “she slammed her boots into the bin provided by Ms. [redacted name – blacked out] …”? There IS a difference!
But no, the press thought it was more relevant to raise questions about Ms. Guergis's mortgage, about the legitimacy of her academic credentials, about whom she had dated 10 or more years ago — oooh, she may have dated a playboy type — now THAT's really relevant and affects her job performance, eh?
And what's worse in all that sordid kind of “journalism” is that now those same scum-bags are puzzled and perturbed by the fact Ms. Guergis has resigned or been dismissed.
Whether it's a case of crocodile tears or simply part of the continuing anti-Harper campaign, it's repulsive.