Lacking Synergies

Can't blame a fellow for exploring all opportunities for self-advancement now, can we? Especially when a hitherto cushy employment fell flat because voters clued in on the fact that there was something not quite right about one's commitment to the job at hand...? But where there's a will there's the way appealing to be manipulated in just the right way. All in the family, after all. If one's wife has the inside skinny, why not share the opportunities?

"We realized after a few meeting with Mr. Gillani that our firms were different and didn't have synergies." - Rahim Jaffer on Nazim Gillani.

"Mr. Jaffer seemed to state to this Committee last week that he ended our relationship months ago. This was untrue." - Nazim Gillani on Rahim Jaffer.

Two unprincipled scoundrels. Whom to believe? Well, both and neither.

Mr. Gillani, most inconveniently for Mr. Jaffer produced a copy of a signed contract, ensuring a "finder's fee" would complement energetic insider lobbying successful in helping Mr. Gillani with financing for his business projects. That kind of synergy. Business is business, after all. And landing big ones is the name of this game.

To which end, is utilized such official government-provided appurtenances as make for needed electronic equipment in a Cabinet Minister's office. Handy to use a parliamentary email account with the logo of the Government of Canada and the imprimatur of a Cabinet portfolio on it to entice clients to believe they'll get their money's worth, and more. "Rahim, here."

It's just human nature, after all, isn't it? Got valuable government contacts? Well, use them!

"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."

"It formalized its services in a contract with my company ... which states that: "The consultant 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."

Sounds like a well-written document, a prettily made up conceit of parliamentary privilege and entree to any areas of interest conceivable. Anyone see anything wrong with that? Calling in old friends and doing a little bit of prodding here, and suggesting there, and recommending over there...?

"Lobbying isn't the nature of our business and we know the rules." Rahim Jaffer

"I sent the email that referred to Mr. Jaffer as "The Canadian government money accesss point", based on my understanding of what he and Mr. Glemaud did for a living." Nazim Gillani

It truly is unfortunate when people somehow manage to confuse issues and get an entirely erroneous opinion of what you're offering and what's legal and what's somewhat illicit. Just can't figure out why everyone is coming down so hard on poor Mr. Jaffer and his colleague.

"We didn't enter into any contracts with him whatsoever", avowed Mr. Glemaud when he was interviewed by those pestiferous MPs on the committee of enquiry.

Sheesh!